Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 March	8 March >

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. Article is found to be original research. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probabilistic solution discovery algorithm

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

Subject of the article does not meet our inclusion criteria. The page serve no other purpose than to promote José Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez, the non-notable author who owns the work. On this note, José Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez should wait until his Algorithm becomes notable and widely discussed, then will someone with no WP:COI, who knows what a sensible article content should be and knows how to link to the title will write about it here.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the author of the article, I think this algorithm is becoming noticed in the literature as about 42 peer-reviewed articles have used this method to solve optimization problems. It is important to keep this article available in Wiki because it describes a technique that belong to Evolutionary algorithms and was shown to be a useful one. The author has no interest to promote José Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez or his co-author. I have modified the article to fix its weaknesses and will continue to modify it as long as my time allows. Mohammed Muaafa (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. In reply to the above that it may be useful is not a criteria. Nor does it need to be here for people to find it; they can refer to the original papers. It needs reliable secondary sources, i.e. sources other than the original papers, which discuss it in depth to establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems to be original research, which we do not publish, by a single primary author, for whom we are not a free resume host. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original concept. Antigng (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect to your opinions, I wonder why these articles, which talk about similar techniques, were published in Wikipedia. Those articles are Harmony search, Evolutionary programming, Gene expression programming. Evolution strategies, Interactive evolutionary algorithm, Differential evolution, Neuroevolution, Learning classifier system, Mohammed Muaafa (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC) • contribs) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Whether other subjects are notable or not is an entirely separate matter.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the above delete votes make much sense to me. The latter two are simply way off base: this is not original research, it is referenced to papers in academic journals. As for the vote of JohnBlackburne, peer-reviewed journals are indeed secondary sources, so if the author can provide some examples of papers using this method which are independent of the research group all the current examples are based on, this will be an easy keep. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on the "Scholar" link above to find some. It finds only 25, not 42, for me, and the majority are by the author of the method, so other papers citing it are very few, nowhere near enough for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the keyword "Probabilistic Solution Discovery Algorithm" not "Probabilistic Solution Discovery Algorithm (PSDA)" when searching in the scholar. You will get 42 research results.Mohammed Muaafa (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just added 4 other references which are independent from the group created the algorithm.Mohammed Muaafa (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term only seems to appear in some poorly cited papers by Ramirez-Marquez and Rocco, so not notable. The references added by Muaafa appear to refer to different forms of EA. They do not mention the subject of this article. -- 120.17.54.158 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if that algorithm had made it into Nature, which it did not, where is the proof of notability? Passing the editorial board / peer review of a serious journal only proves that it is respectable research. We are looking for stuff that has a lasting and/or important impact on the field, and no, articles by the author (or his labmates) are not reliable sources for that: I have yet to read an article of original research that does not begin by some variant of "the sub-sub-sub-domain in which we will present some result is the key to the whole of biology/physics". Tigraan (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics of this discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Ibañez

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Professors and Associate professors are not generally notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article cites no sources at all (could have been BLPPROD'ed), not finding significant evidence of notability when I go looking for it. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the WP:BLPPROD very unnecessary for this article after I considered WP:BEFORE. However, WP:BLPPROD is one of several deletion processes on wikipedia.Editors may use other deletion process if the notability of the subject is in doubt. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails verifability as she is NOT a full Professor; see here: "Mariana Ibanez is Associate Professor of Architecture at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. She teaches in the architecture core design studio sequence." Associate Professors rarely pass, with clear exceptions such as Barbette Spaeth. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not make the case, and I couldn't find substantial RS coverage elsewhere. Subject could well become notable in future, in which case we should have this article back. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable, and unverifiable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Institute of Healing Arts

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

Mostly promotional content. No sources outside itself and basic public records. Fails WP: ORG. TungstenWarrior (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent sources. Jacona (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. There's no way this will go any other way, and there's nothing to be gained by letting it stay open just so the participants can trade bitchy comments. – iridescent 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and the Wolf ("Weird Al" Yankovic & Wendy Carlos album)

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

Unsourced since 2007. Absolutely zero sourcing found. Album did not chart and was not reveiewed as far as I could find. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the album being released by two notable artists, and I see absolutely no way in which this meets WP:NALBUMS. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Memorable article by two notable artists; the only effect of deletion would be to unnecessarily change an entry on their discographies from a bluelink to a redlink. This is a pointless, worthless nomination, and I came close to unilaterally speedy-keeping the article, if only in an effort to induce the nominator to stay away from the AfD pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Grudge much? I love how you completely gloss over "no sourcing found" and think that it should be kept just because the artists are notable. Did you not read WP:NALBUMS and WP:NOTINHERITED? How about WP:WAX? Every single word of your !vote is completely flawed, and it's clear that you only came here to wikihound me because you think I'm a moron. Either !vote based on the nomination, not the nominator, or leave me the hell alone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Newyorkbrad that we shouldn't go out of our way to create gaps in our coverage of the works of significant artists: it just doesn't improve the encyclopedia. In this case: per the Chicago Tribune(1989): "Yankovic`s other breakout project, an album featuring fractured versions of Prokofiev`s 'Peter and the Wolf' and Saint-Saens` 'Carnival of the Animals-Part Two' done with high-tech composer Wendy Carlos and released last year, earned him good notices and a Grammy nomination in the category of children`s recording." [1] (See also Grammy Award for Best Album for Children#1980s.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The artists are notable, it was nominated for a Grammy, and now has a legitimate source. I'm sure there are more out there, but it's just a matter of taking time to get those sources. But I also strongly dislike the fact that this article has been nominated for deletion, when it merely could have been quietly redirect to a discography page or something, and then quietly recreated when enough sources were found.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the Grammy nomination mentioned above by Arxiloxos, there is a 2nd write-up in the Chicago Tribune (1988), and further coverage in People magazine (1988), and Keyboard magazine (1988; snippet 1, 2). Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 22:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and the work to find sources in seconds, as demonstrated above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Burma

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

The article was created by a Jermboy sock and has no sources, relying on SVG files from other countries such as Denmark and Panama. Sources for Burmese road signs are extremely limited, but any I can find do not support the images shown on this article. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. A decent if odd article could be written on this topic, but this is not even a stub. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oakland Athletics first-round draft picks. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fritz

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

Run of the mill minor leaguer. Never played in the bigs. No indication of meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 21:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person is not yet notable, being still in the minor leagues. ~EdGl! 00:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not WP:TOOSOON, it's WP:TOOLATE. I created this article six years ago. Let's just say that my understanding of notability has improved since then. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this may even fall under WP:G7 (Speedy Delete - author requests deletion)... personally I'm not so sure, but one could make that argument. ~EdGl! 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's in cases where noone else has edited the page. This appears to be an easy decision for an administrator to make in a few days anyway, so I wouldn't sweat it. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed for sources, but doesn't seem likely to meet WP:N. I will just say that I don't think this is a Speedy candidate since others besides the author have edited the article. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oakland Athletics first-round draft picks as a likely search term as he is mentioned in that article. Spanneraol (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as A7, G6 and G11 by User:RHaworth (non-admin closure). ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAT calculator program

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

No Notability noted, lack of cititions, almost seems like self-promotion Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JNetDirect Incorporated

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

No substantial references for notability DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete all refs are press-releases. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to be promotional and to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Dynamics

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

Highly promotional article, essentially the table of contents of a single book DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to a new topic for Spiral Dynamics (book), with this current content cut down to subsections on book content. Doesn't seem too promotional to me - someone put a lot of work into this page and it's bloated, sure, but they were careful to word things in an encyclopedic style and included a criticism section. Earflaps (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is out of proportion to the notability of the book. Too many of the references are to the web site promoting the book and its topic. This is the second possibly promotional article I've reviewed whose many author is User:Dawlco, and I would appreciate any clarity that could be provided regarding User:Dawlco's relationship to these articles. One of those articles is Elza_Maalouf, and I note that books by Maalouf and a "Dawlabani, Said" are referenced in this article. LaMona (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Too many of the references are to the web site promoting the book and its topic." - to be devil's advocate, it could just be that the editor is still familiarizing themselves with how to reference well. Since the info based on those links could be easily culled, I wouldn't see that alone as a reason for deletion. Also, being an spa with a poor grasp of GNG doesn't necessitate that Dawlco has a COI. It's perfectly likely that he/she became familiar with the topics in some college course, and these less-than-perfect pages are their 'gateway' contributions to Wikipedia. Earflaps (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question why is this article up for deletion in this project? under its talk page Talk:Spiral Dynamics it is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views; it is not part of the literature project. The article is about the theories of Don Beck who wrote a book about it. let the other projects worry about it:) ps. it has previously been up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral dynamics the discussion makes a good read:) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not clear what are third-party references, if any of them are - has anyone dredged out these? A trivial Google shows very little third-party - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found diddlysquat on the actual Wikipedia page as is, but going pretty deep into google did find some impressive mentions in academic contexts (Architectural Review). Though I have no idea why Huffpost has a tag for "spiral dynamics." basically I got the feeling that the Wikipedia current page doesn't even address what the popular use of this phrase is, because the more I searched, the more confused I got. For example, this excerpt from the above link: "The next meme is Purple, that of the tribe and KinSpirits, and Gebser’s Magic structure, in which thinking is animistic and magical, attributing powers to sacred and symbolic objects and starting to observe the cycles of seasons, customs and rites of passage." Wut? A pseudoscience experts might be useful here - Google is saturated with the phrase, but the search engine seems to prioritize mumbo jumbo websites made by Indigo children in lab suits. Earflaps (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and clean up article ruthlessly. Plenty of mentions in books[2] and Google Scholar[3].

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page seems to be a decent summary of this philosophical examination and analysis of the development of a person's personality. It is lengthy, but, well written, and, gives me enough information that it arouses a certain interest in digging deeper into this model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmundt (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Even without proof, anyone with half a brain is going to assume you and the next comment are the same person. If you want to get your point across, just log into one account like a normal person and leave comments (you don't need to vote to contribute). The amount of 'keeps' vs. 'deletes' is less important than the discussion anyways. Earflaps (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a topic of notable interest in my field; I don't quite understand why anyone wants it deleted. I agree with the previous poster that it's a reasonable summary and leads those interested into learning more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyre42 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please note the contribs on these two keep votes. LaMona (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete A promo of a weird pseudoscience; with no discussion inmainstream to establish notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Center

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

An ordinary office building of modest size, not historic, not on any register, with WP:MILL issues. Sources are routine coverage in a local business journal and some typical city council meetings involved with construction permits. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is properly sourced and contains relevant information as well as historical information. There are many articles on buildings similar to this one that have similar sources. I see no reason this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhamAla (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In addition to the sources already in the article, here are two more:
1. "Deals of the Decade: Concord Center". Birmingham Business Journal. 2011-04-08. Archived from the original on 2015-02-26. Retrieved 2015-02-26.
2. Diel, Stan (2012-10-24). "Cadence Bank sign to be placed atop downtown's Concord Center". The Birmingham News. Archived from the original on 2015-02-26. Retrieved 2015-02-26.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Concord Center to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That the sources are local sources does not matter for Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The encyclopedia does not benefit from deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on a topic that passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. At most, it should be merged/edirected to Harbert Management Corporation, but I'd prefer keeping since a merge would be unable to retain all of the information currently in the article. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm glad to see some participation here. But according to WP:GNG: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. And according to WP:GEOFEAT, Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. A mention in the local newspaper every 5 years is not significant coverage. The fact that we've been given a short piece in a local paper about what used to be on that lot before Concord Center was built is telling-the site is more interesting than the building. The fact that we are presented a mention in a local blog about a new sign being hung on the building as a sign of notability is telling. There's nothing interesting or notable about this office building. WP:MILL. Geogene (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local notability only. "Deals of the century" in one city--and reading the article indicate the headline is wildly exaggerated for an 11 story office building. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 02:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Antigng (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Normally I !vote to keep buildings tall enough to have a page on Emporis, but for this one the information was sketchy. No data at the architects' website, just a short description and images. No coverage that I could find in architecture magazines. So in itself I don't think the building is notable enough. Nor can a building be notable because of the tenants or articles about the local real-estate market. The two possibly notable features are that the Birmingham Business Journal article was a detailed 4-page profile of the architects, with a good deal of information about the building, and the fact that the pyramids echo the old courthouse. There is an image of the old courthouse on Commons, (here). That was a historic building. If images could be added with information about that building and the history of the site, I think that might make the article as a whole notable enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G5. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil Free Yale

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

Was created as an attack page, and organization doesn't appear to have enough demonstrated notability for its own article. Insufficient information for merge anywhere, imho. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Yale University student organizations. Mostly campus news hits but also a few news name checks, e.g., [4]. It's off-topic, but I also would urge the organization to change their name; I thought they wanted to empty the Peabody Museum of Natural History. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was created by a Grundle sock, so could just delete as G5. Ravensfire (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchhiking (disambiguation)

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

There's actually only one other "hitchhiking" term besides the main topic, which I've added as a hatnote. The rest I've already split up into Hitchhiker (disambiguation), Hitchhike (disambiguation) and The Hitcher. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Hitchhike (disambiguation) Original title still useful as alternate verb form ({{R from modification}}). BTW it would be better to interlink the three split dabs with See-also's. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The idea is that we need to distinguish between grammatical forms like "Hitchhike" and "Hitchhiking"? Is that the policy? I didn't know, so I left a question at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Separate disambiguation articles for word forms. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems better to keep such close variations together. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One problem you seem to have overlooked is that there's only one entry that matches the title, genetic hitchhiking, and that's a partial match. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge the appropriate similar titles on this page to other disambiguation pages when appropriate; redirect this page to Hitchhike (disambiguation); place Hitchhiking, Genetic hitchhiking and related pages in "See also" sections; keep merged page as a redirect. As long as pages do not get too long and are well-organized, it will be an easy task for readers to find what they've come to read. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 17:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Per nom, we don't need a disambiguation page for the single entry on "Hitchhiking". Paine Ellsworth's plan for the other items sounds good to me. I think the title of the main disambiguation page should be the base form of the verb, namely "Hitchhike". As to whether "Hitchhiker" should be a section on the "Hitchhike" page or have its own page, I'm OK with either but leaning to having it all on the same page to facilitate maintenance of the See also and other sections, which might have to be duplicated if they were separate pages. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per MOSDAB: the exact title has only two meanings. "Hitchhiker (dab): and "Hitcher (dab)" are better be kept as separate pages, just as Swimming (disambiguation), Swimmer (disambiguation), Swim (disambiguation). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Industrial Boulevard

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG; no independent reliable sources are present to attest to the notability of this road. No sources were added to demonstrate notability since the AfD in October 2013. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that says this road is notable, and a few quick searches don't bring anything up either. Doesn't seem to be much more than just a road. T C N7JM 20:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insignificant road.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not seeing any evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no references which deal specifically with the subject. Hence WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even if not, it needs to be rewritten as it violates WP:ORIGINALSYN. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing special about it. Dough 48 72 02:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Max Puksy

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

Delete. Seems both non-notable and ridiculously promotional. Zero hits on Google Books or Google News. bd2412 T 18:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Glorification and proselytization all rolled into one article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent notability shown. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Mena

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that he has played for the Ecuadorian national team. This is factually incorrect. He may have been called up, but he has never actually played as is required to meet WP:NSPORT. Additionally, he has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. He plays for Equador champions Emelec and has multiple appearances in the South American Continental Competitions.Played in 2014 Copa Sudamericana and scored in the quarter Finals against River Plate and scored against São Paulo FC in the 2014 Copa Sudamericana final stages.He is also playing in the Copa Libertadores the top club competition in South America and second only to UEFA Champions League and has scored in 2 out of the 3 games played so for and is amongst top scorers so far. scored here and scored against Internacional in the ongoing 2015 Copa Libertadores .Note he was only on the bench in the Equador National Team and was only in the provisional Ecuador 2014 World cup squad [5].But think should pass WP:GNG could find some coverage this,this this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:NFOOTBALL but meets WP:GNG which is sufficient. Giant Snowman 14:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extensive coverage shows GNG is met. In addition, has a Spanish wikipedia article here [6]. People who speak in Ecuador's official language seem to think there is significant coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Might of been delete the first time through but not now. Wgolf (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has been very successful with Emelec, and his exploits are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in the media would imply that he passes WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panky

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

Actor who has very little notability Wgolf (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be more notable as a singer than an actor; searching turns up at least a few solid sources in Spanish-language media, such as [7] [8][9]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lidung Jelo

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

Apparently Not notable Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EFactor.com

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

Fails GNG. Promotional/vanity article. This company article lists four references (excluding the company's own website), none of which actually mention the company. A cursory search for other references fails to find substantial references that qualify as RS. Article is liberally sprinkled with off-Wiki links to company's own website and infused with advertising statements like "EFactor is a true social network that offers in person and online networking opportunities to help develop a successful business." According to article's Talk page, entry was written by someone closely affiliated with company ("We are a big supporter of Wikipedia here at EFactor and wish to be on your free encyclopedia.") LavaBaron (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2015 (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/2015 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator's research is persuasive. Could almost have been speedy-deleted per G11, blatant advertising. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the arguments made here and at the previous AFD, this article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Murshidabad beheading

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:ROUTINE and WP:N/CA Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the references are within 1 or 2 days from the event shows the breaking news period. Also killing for marrying in different religion is common in India/Pakistan. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As per WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, the event seems to fail the test of "enduring notability." LavaBaron (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recieved attention by media. Well sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This doesn't fail WP:ROUTINE because this incident could not have been a scheduled event for the press to cover. This also does not fail in WP:N/CA, because this was not just a breaking news about a crime, there was discussion in TV and newspapers regarding the incident. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intellispot TV

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

There is no significant independent third party coverage that I can find. The article's references consist of PR releases and linkspam. Does not meet WP:CORP. No reliable sources to verify notability. JBH (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with what what JBH has said. No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to meet WP:CORP or the WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASYOU

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

Not notable student organization. No independent RS coverage. Sealle (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG - despite the voluminous text in this article, there are no readily discoverable RS about it LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1988 UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race

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

There is nothing in this article that is not already in the article 1988 UCI Road World Championships other than unsourced opinion and speculation. The tone is thoroughly unencyclopaedic. The few events at the WC that year means there is no need for daughter articles for individual races. Can't see anything here that merits salvage: even the key detail of Bauer's disqualification is absent. Kevin McE (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After rewriting the page, and making it the same layout as the pages from other years, it is good enough to keep it. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 09:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the expansion from Sander and the ref I've added to support the text. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolan Hsueh

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

(Prodded (and prod endorsed), can't think of anything to add to Prod rationale so here it is again) Non-notable; doesn't come close to satisfying any of the criteria for WP:NAUTHOR. Anyone can write a book, anyone can give a 15 minute talk for TED, anyone can run a Kickstarter. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Unotable author. Wgolf (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has some independent sources: [10][11][12][13]. Though one can also argue the notability is with the product and not the creator. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conserve. Not everyone presented an official TED talk (not an independently-organised event) and (more importantly) not everyone wrote a book which receive extended media coverage and was translated in eleven languages within its first year. I created the article to talk about the book and the learning method but I thought the title should be the author. The method definitely deserved an encyclopaedic description in Wikipedia; but do not hesitate to add more sources (as I did today) and to suggest improvements or new title if you thinks it would be better. Han Pin Yu Tan (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look at the 4 sources given above in a comment [14] is a reliable profile of her published not because she was already notable at that point, but just as a sort of human interest piece. still it's reliable. The next three are profiles in major international news outlets about her method of teaching Chinese, Fast Company, ], Voice of America. These are enough to justify an article. [15] [16][17] But in addition, the page itself has this [18] from The Guardian. So, yeah, successfully promoting yourself and the learning system you created/book you wrote into the Guardian and onto Voice of America equate to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Internet Research

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

No inherent notability or 3rd party sources. Fails WP:ORG. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find reputable secondary sources. Caseeart (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Caseeart. The chief scientist seems to have been active in this field for at least a decade, but not finding many reputable sources. – Margin1522 (tlk) 22:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe you will do what you think is correct. That said, the disputes that took place on Wikipedia because members of AOIR did not want to share the stage with either TCFIR or the organizations of Tim Berniers Lee.

I requested intervention and this is the first I have heard since 2010.

TCFIR has membership, directors and publications from notable figures. The membership rivals AOIR in numbers. The issue of "notability" is subjective at best. We feel that we have the right to some recognition but that of course will be decided by your editors.

As requested we have stayed away from Wikipedia. I don't wish to get involved in the edit war that happened in the past. We do feel that if you look at the editors involved you will see some unfairness. Particularly on the part of Buridan and Alex Halavais but they are not the only AOIR members involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreid (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed as copyvio, but that is my error, and I reverted it; it has an acceptable cc0by-sa license. Whether there is notability might be another matter, but I will let someone else close properly. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Purcell

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

Notability concerns for this serial internet entrepreneur (you would think, of all people, online coverage would be available for someone like this). The available news mentions seem to be brief about him and largely about his companies (particularly Epoch Networks). Personally I'd suggest a redirect to Epoch Networks, where some of the news sources here can be usefully employed. Sionk (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2015 (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 13:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kawthar Academy

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

i tried to merge this with Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq but an IP think it's notable. Reads like a flyer. so i think this should be a protected redirect Helwingia (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and WP:Dynamite Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq (yet another puff-piece of an Islamist "scholar" (read: hard-line, pro-ISIS mullah). Do it right now. Pax 02:38, 27 February 2015 (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 13:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banu (makeup artist)

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

Delete: Does not meet WP:ENT. Unless there is another category this article falls in, this fails the requirement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article is still developing, so please give me some time. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article was still underconstruction when this AfD took place. నిజానికి (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2015 (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 13:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has quite a few citations now. Reading through them, they show significant coverage. This could be expanded into a really interesting article. She's also got international coverage in the UK's BBC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close - This should've been speedy closed not relisted ...... Articles should be nominated in a year or so... Not a month later, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Nayem

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of significance and does not meet notability requirement Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This was only nominated a month ago...... –Davey2010^Talk 03:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article was not kept due to debate but due to result of previous nomination was no consensus. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles whatever the outcome should be nominated 5 months minimum - Articles renominated a month later is disruptive editing. –Davey2010^Talk 11:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davey2010 This article was nominated from deletion on 8th Feb 2015 and was closed after 14 days on 22nd Feb 2015 and again renominated on Feb 28th 2015. Without prejudice to it being renominated later.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The result of previous nomination was no consensus. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ihana Dhillon

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

Unotable actress with only one film released so far. Wgolf (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 07:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srikrishna Vishnubhotla

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

I put this as a blp prod but decided to change this now. Page is full of very bias terms (and the only refs were to Youtube also) Wgolf (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "...a jubilant young man with a beaming face, is not just one of the most sought after singers in the Telugu filmdom, but..." (and it goes on and on and on...). Pax 10:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-almost sounds like a review a family member made even. Wgolf (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oathblood

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

This book doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, completely redundant to Mercedes_Lackey_bibliography#Vows_and_Honor How do you ask for Speedy Deletion? --Enyavar (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Enyavar. Looks completely redundant. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I agree. This article is redundant from the Lackey Bib page. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NBOOK, any usable info could be moved to author article Mercedes Lackey. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mercedes Lackey bibliography#Vows and Honor or delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Maybe someone can locate print reviews; in that case, the article can be recreated, but I think a redirect would be best right now. I'd settle for deletion in order to get consensus established. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as CSD A1 by User:RHaworth (non-admin closure). ToonLucas22 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fula(food)

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

Completely unsourced article about a food item. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources cover this food, or even say that this porridge even exists. Esquivalience ^t 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speedy delete per CSD A1. I wonder why the speedy deletion was declined as "having the subject clear", as the article is still very short. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find reliable sources to prove notability. ~EdGl! 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1995–1996. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Spartan Cheerleaders

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

Almost completely original research, isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 06:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1995–1996. Appears to be a significant recurring skit ([26]), but a mass of unsourced crufty detail doesn't justify a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 13:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given a lack of reliable sources independent of the subject, I'd agree with redirect as suggested by Michig --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Halpern

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

I don't see the sources adding up to the general notability guidelines.

Interview in Fast Company - the interview isn't about him, it is him giving advice on maximizing your blogs ROI (Return on Investment?)
The second is a short article with a link to a video (which I an not going to watch, but I will presume is by him) in Entrepreneur, but I Really don't think that this "article provides the depth of coverage required for a BLP.
1. Also worth noting, the author of this is also a "contributor", his day job is "CEO of The GoodBrain Digital Studios".
Since it says Forbes it seems like it should be a solid, however it looks to me like it is more of a posting by a Forbes "contributor", and not so much an actual article in the magazine. The author (who has studied journalism) runs a "strategy consulting firm" (I really don't know what that is), so I highly doubt this has gone through the editorial oversight required for a BLP source. Especially since the caveat says "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
The fourth Small Business Owners: Top 50 Twitter Influencers Worth Following - I really think it should be self evident why this is not an appropriate source for establishing notability (although it is used appropriately in the article). kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to user space as draft. Author clearly tried to meet WP standards but this article just isn't there yet. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC, can only find questionable or self-published sources about him, sources referenced in article are either only trivial mentions or unreliable. Esquivalience ^t 13:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The case for delete was mostly based on this violating WP:SYNTH, but those arguing that side failed to make a convincing case. It is certainly true that this article leans heavy on recent events, out of proportion to the 250 year history of the movement. That is only a symptom, however, of the greater problem with WP:Recentism, which, sadly, plagues the entire project. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

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

Article is violation of several WP policies including COATRACK, SYNTH, UNDUE. Nature of article is a COATRACK of all negative events relating to chabad. Various historical events are placed side by side creating an impression of a link between events (the link being all are deemed "controversial"), thus in violation of SYNTH. Local, individual and isolated events are constantly being added to a page relating to a 250 year movement, giving UNDUE weight to those events. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The previous AFD discussion (in 2007) resulted in "keep" as the article was (at that time) mainly on the topic of Chabad messianism. Consensus was reached that the Chabad messianism debate (under the title Controversies of Chabad) should be a separate article as Yechi. Subsequently, Chabad messianism became its own page (which Yechi was merged into) and this page was left to become a COATRACK. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Link to previous afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Compiling various cases together create POV. Attack style. Caseeart (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because: (1) This is an important WP:NPOV article with enough WP:V & WP:RS about an important WP:N and controversial movement. (2) The nominator has spent a lot of time in recent YEARS and many MONTHS whittling away at this article for well over TWO YEARS having single-handedly shredded it beyond recognition of its meat, bones and sinews, and now claims "look the patient is now a skeletal 'coat-rack'" well, ha, what do you expect after a POV campaign to make chopped meat of this article that few other editors have had the stomach to participate in with such tenacity. Take a look at the original article before the nominator shredded it over at least two years, say at June 2013 and it is an incredibly coherent, scholarly and acceptable article with all due WP:V & WP:RS. (3) While the nominator has had plenty of time to shred the article, there seems to be an obvious WP:COI. He does not even have the courtesy to inform David Spart (talk · contribs) who started the hard work here in February 2007 [27] about this deletion discussion per accepted WP norms who started the hard work. (4) This nomination gets into the problematic area that was dealt with with in a 2010 ArbCom case, see for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement#Editors encouraged: "Editors on Chabad articles are encouraged to use talkpage discussion and, if that fails, other available content-dispute resolution techniques, in connection with any remaining content disputes. This includes, among other things, disagreements concerning the weight to be given to Chabad views versus other Jewish points of view in Judaism articles, concerning whether articles about Chabad-related topics or persons should be deleted, and concerning inclusion of links" -- and that procedure was not used here, rather a resort to slow-motion editing to favor the pro-Chabad point of view obviously. (5) This kind of topic is a natural subject within the parameters of its super parent Category:Religious controversies and its immediate parent Category:Judaism-related controversies that includes at least 27 other such sub-categories and 115 articles mired in genuine controversies connected with Judaism, and no one would suggest to shut any of them down as subjects for tenuous WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT "reasons" either. (6) There was an overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS to Keep this article with lengthy discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch. Finally not only should this article be kept, but ALL material that has been edited out and removed by the nominator over the last two years should be restored or at least be put up for full and lengthy discussion on its related talk page per the 2010 ArbCom ruling/s regarding Chabad-related article on WP, or else more serious sanctions should be considered and/or implemented. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer in the order you wrote. 1- Just because in your opinion it is chabad "a controversial movement" that does not assert an article. 2-Two years ago there was the same exact problem of compilation of original research. 3-Let us refrain accusing the nominator of not notifying David Spart (talk · contribs) who's last edit is nearly 9 years old. 4-Assume good faith just like we assume good faith on your edits - despite your comments accusations and tone of voice. 5- "Categories" have nothing to do with "articles" -which need to adhere to wikipedia policies. 6- The nominator addressed this. 7- I am now discussing about the deletion or retention of the article. Caseeart (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caseeart: Is Chabad so "perfect" that it is above any valid critique and criticism? Is it so immature that it cannot take normal adult feedback in encyclopedic form? Is Chabad totally "un-controversial"? If so how, if not, why? Just off the top of my head I can think of about ten current controversies either within Chabad or involving Chabad that can be written with WP:V & WP:RS & WP:N, if you can't then what do you really know about Chabad? There are by now thousands of pro-Chabad articles that are pure hagiography and the only reason they survive is because no one has the stamina to sit around and create the counter-weights and if they do their efforts will be attacked in all sorts of ways, see what has happened to these Chabad controversies articles Shaul Shimon Deutsch & Barry Gurary they are pockmarked with gazillions of "{{cn}}" templates in obvious acts of WP:CENSORSHIP& WP:VANDALISM and WP:LAWYERING or worse! Take care, IZAK (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you feel that way about Chabad and the community of Chabad editors. Generally I have seen that articles related to Judaism and specifically religious Jews - these articles are often victims of unfair negative edits. It is possible that Chabad articles which are Jewish+Religious+Chabad piling up even more groups of users adding negative information. Maybe that is what prompts such responses. Caseeart (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caseeart: No need to preach to me about Chabad, I am not its enemy and wrote up virtually all the first drafts of each of the seven Chabad Rebbes long before you came along. The problem we are dealing with on WP is that the pro-Chabad POV-warriors have tunnel vision when it comes to their illegal WP:OWN domain of Chabad articles. It is wrong of you to conflate the issues surrounding the Chabad-related articles and Judaism articles. For the record, from my vast experience of 12 years on WP I can prove to you that when pro-Chabad editors are around they do not give a hoot what happens to other Judaism-related articles, they only appear like attack-bees when Chabad-proper articles do not reflect the pro-Chabad hagiography party-line. 99.99% if not more of virtually all Chabad-related articles on WP are just paeans of praise for their subjects. Of the one or two articles somewhat more critical articles, like the AfD in question here, you should actually fight to retain them because it proves that Chabad is as human and fallible as anyone or anything else. Even Moses the greatest Jew who ever lived (not according to Chabad messianic nut-jobs of course since that would be the 7th Rebbe) was not perfect, he was banished by God from entering Eretz Yisrael, and the Jews of the Exodus were punished to wander for 40 years and die in the wilderness, while the first humans Adam and Eve were punished and explicitly rebuked by God for all time for their failings and the Torah does not hide their faults. Imagine if Adam and Eve were really "Chabad shluchim" how the fanatical pro-Chabad editors would edit out the Torah's criticism's of them! but that standard of Judaism seems to not apply to Chabad articles...WHY? Are they infallible and better than anyone else and immune from any critiques? What is called for is a little maturity and objectivity and for you and the pro-Chabad editors to back off and allow SOME criticism and not try to swing every last vestige your way to avoid making Chabad look more foolish than it does already with the kind of "defenders" they have on WP warping the story that fools nobody. IZAK (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Have now created the perfectly valid WP:NPOV Category:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies with our article under siege here as its main article which makes perfectly good sense. IZAK (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find your creation of this category, at the same time the article is up for Afd, to be somewhat of a trick to game the system. If this article will be deleted, I will Cfd your category based on that. If only to teach you a lesson that editors shouldn't try to game the system. By the way, your reference to that ArbCom case is interesting, because you lost it. :) Debresser (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Quite on the contrary, during AfDs articles are very often improved to save them and there is no better proof of the strength and viability of any article that it can in fact be the {{main}} article for a full category containing many directly related articles that fit into it perfectly. Besides, it will take a lot of back-peddling to try figure out all the important stuff that the nominator cut out of this article in the years and months before his latest attempt to delete the rest that he just does not like. As for the ArbCom case on the contrary there too, a standing warning was issued to partisan pro-Chabad editors not to engage in activity that results in creating and spinning articles about Chabad topics that do not adhere to WP:NPOV, simply because Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org per WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NOTMYSPACE, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings. Admittedly it must be very hard for any pro-Chabad POV editor to truly understand this, but it is important for the historical record as well as for genuine encyclopedic needs to record all points of view, just as there are plentiful articles in Category:Judaism-related controversies and Category:Religious controversies that one cannot just "wish away" no matter how distasteful the topic may be on a purely personal level. IZAK (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the low opinion you express regarding pro-Chabad editors, I am all in favor of improving articles, and I am well familiar with the fact that Afd discussions often lead to improvement of articles. You may have noticed, that I have not stated any opinion as to whether this article should be deleted or kept. I do protest the creation of the category, which I think was uncalled for and insults the participants in this discussion by trying to game the system, and I think it will eventually be related in any case. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of controversies involving Chabad and it seems reasonable to bring them together on one page. It is a bit too bulky to merge anywhere. Deletion would amount to revisionism. JFW | T@lk 10:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are "plenty of controversies" - it does not mean that it meets wikipedia's article policy. We are not a billboard. Caseeart (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep it's an appropriate place to bring them together. "Coatrack" would mean using at article on Chabad to discuss all the various religious and social matters they have ever spoken about, rather than discussing the role of Chabad in them. And, fwiw, having the category as well as the article is a good idea,and standard practice. However, it is much better to avoid the term controversy, both for the category and the article, and some alternative should be looked for DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Appropriate" is not an argument to delete or retain an article. Policy is what determines. This is a compilation of unrelated events into one article which is WP:ORIGINAL research. (There are other policy issues such as WP:ATTACK etc.)Caseeart (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note If there are 115 articles in "Judaism related controversies" category - as IZAK pointed out - why is there no article on "Judaism related controversies"? Caseeart (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: DGG noted about renaming the article. How about a more neutral name like Challenges to the Chabad Movement or Criticism and Challenges to the Chabad Movement?

I have not found sources with those titles (still a problem with OR) but that will address most of the concerns of the nominator, it will also make it more difficult to vandalize the article or add individual isolated events and will give place to a neutral two sided article. Caseeart (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is nowhere else in Wikipedia that anything remotely critical of Chabad can be posted. This is not a COATRACK; rather it is some cross between an article and a list (these happen, you know) of controversies and critiques related to Chabad. In my opinion, any critique or controversy that is institutional in nature (rather than individual) is on topic here.

FWIW, I am certainly not a Chabad critic, on net. Ask other editors.

And one other thing: if this article disappears, in my opinion you will legitimately open the main article Chabad to the inclusion of more criticism of Chabad than it has now. Chabad has plenty of critics, but for right now, those critics generally have to write here (or in yet more obscure locations). People like me have encouraged critics not to write on the page Chabad itself because the criticism is rarely about Chabad as a whole. But that's because there is another place to go—here. Be careful what you wish for. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see some additional remarks I made on the talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81 I saw your remarks on the talk page and your a neutral editing on Chabad topics. If consensus is to retain the article - what would you say about DGGs idea of renaming the article? Renaming it could also clarify that this article is about "Chabad" and not about individuals or individual institutions in Chabad?

You brought a good example in the Chabad Talk page and I will use it here: If we would create An article on United States related controversies (and there are a lot) - it would only contain controversies about the "United States" - not about people or individual institutions within the United states (which never ends). Similarly an article created about Judaism related controversies would not be a blog forum to post any controversial information about any Jewish person or institution. Caseeart (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caseeart, first of all, I would not have a problem with an article rename. It probably needs to contain some version of the word controversy or the word critique/criticism, but I do not have a strong opinion about what the article should really be called.

However ... I suggest you reread my example at Talk:Chabad. It was quite different from what you described above.

And another however: Clearly controversies related to Chabad widely belong here. Clearly controversies limited to a single Chabad individual do not. (We could perhaps argue that point if the individual were heading one of Chabad's major global organizations, but that's a theoretical discussion, not a real one.) Controversies regarding specific Chabad institutions are much trickier. Unlike the examples you bring of the United States above, or of Judaism/Jews as a whole, people see Chabad (rightly and/or wrongly) as a global organization with at least some modicum of global direction and control involved. Positives in one part of the organization reflect positively on the movement as a whole—and problems in one part of the organization reflect negatively on the movement as a whole.

It would be more appropriate to bring this example I gave at Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies directly:

"We're not talking about an allegation that a single Chabad rabbi in Australia was a pedophile. We have an allegation that the Chabad organization in Australia tolerated pedophilia and protected its members. That's notable, and that's notable at the global level. Moreover, if I heard that there were a controversy about a Chabad affiliate and pedophilia abuses, and I didn't know ahead of time that it took place in Australia—perhaps I wonder where it took place at all—I'd come here. For you (sic) to demand that it go on the (nonexistent, by the way) Chabad in Australia page is entirely absurd to me."

The minute that the controversy includes a pattern bigger than a single institution, it is a controversy about Chabad. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I have not discussed where individual cases should go)

- This page may be beneficial for Chabad for the reasons you pointed out but...

Chabad is the only article on Wikipedia with such a subject name. The problem with such OR style articles (both Chabad related controversies and Judaism related controversies), is that there are almost unlimited individual cases of controversy against it's 1000's of mainstream institutions and schools, and there are almost unlimited individual cases of praise or accomplishments by it's large institutions. What will determine? and why do "current events" have priority?

In either case I guess a name change would correct much of this problem. Caseeart (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caseeart: Oppose name change. Try not to bend reality to suit the distortions, rather, try to understand what is the cause of the distortion/problem in the first place and how to best use description & explanation, that are the best tools of science and the social sciences to analyze it on WP. Covering up reality with rotten and rotting mounds of hagiography solves nothing, it's just a terrible placebo you are feeding the readership of WP in the hope of fooling them with a fake picture of reality. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this discussion has, in my view, consisted of invoking many WP policies in hoping that one or more might stick, e.g., WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, and so forth. I've already explained why I don't think it's COATRACK. I also don't think it's OR, in that nobody is (as far as I know) looking to synthesize the things here into some kind of coherent whole that is more than the sum of its parts (or even that is just the sum of its parts). The facts are what they are, and provided they are otherwise noteworthy and are sourced consistently with WP policy, as long as no one is trying to synthesize them into a specific narrative, they are not OR.

I'd point out: Don't lawyer on noteworthy. Let's assume for the sake of discussion here that at least some things in this article pass the test. I think you will lose if you try to say that nothing in this article was truly noteworthy.
Leaving aside the article title for the moment, if something is a controversy and is included here, that inclusion is not synthesis per se. It's only synthesis and OR if someone tries to tie things together to create a pattern that cannot be justified from outside sources. The current article lead makes it clear that items here should be viewed as generally not connected. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caseeart, if you think a name change would help, why don't you go out into the wiki and try to find three examples of articles about criticism/critique/controversy/challenge/whatever and propose some names that people here can discuss? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G4) NAC –Davey2010^Talk 03:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah closed it! - Took 3 attempts to close so not sure what the hell happened , Anyway my apologies. –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strathdon Caledonia Pipe Band

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toyetic

AfDs for this article:

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

I’m nominating this article to be migrated to Wiktionary. I note it’s been six years since the original nomination, and this article is still little more than a definition and history of the word and examples of where the word may be appropriate to use. Seems it’d be more at home at wikt:toyetic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: WP:SNOW. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move Toyetic to Toyeticness (from adjective to noun)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Toyeticness is a major factor in how profitable a story line is likely to be. When Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out (way back in late 1977), I noticed that it gave little opportunity for related toys. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may, the material that we have seems more suited to a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. (By the way, thanks for moving this page to the right place.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2015 (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/2015 March 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that there are several examples of how the word Toyetic applies to encyclopedic topics makes it appropriate to keep on WP (though of course there's no reason a Wikictionary entry could be included too). There is probably more that can be added in discussing cross-promotional materials that are used to sell toys that relate to the concept of toyetic-ness. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem: I don't understand this rationale at all. You could take any term on Urban Dictionary and say it applies to encyclopedic subjects. Other than Star Wars, which is mentioned in the apparent sole reliable primary source on the subject, every single one of these is 100% original research (not to mention the fact that they're just describing merchandising/licensing/tie-ins (all of which we have articles for). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Checking both Google Books and News shows many instances of the word in relationship to toy / (tv/film) tie in properties, and the effect they have had on marketing. (eg "The Economy of Icons: How Business Manufactures Meaning" book , "Buy, Buy Baby: How Consumer Culture Manipulates Parents and Harms Young Minds" book, and more.) There's a proper article here. I do agree that all the examples need sourcing from secondary places, but it's relatively easy to find these (eg for transformers, "The Shifting Definitions of Genre: Essays on Labeling Films, Television ..." calls out both the show and movies.). This is more than just a neologism documented only at Urban Dictionary - its a term that's been used since the 80s. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don’t think this belongs on Wikipedia, but if this isn’t to be merged to Wiktionary or deleted, then rename to noun (toyeticness?) per WP:AT. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete or Merge (but not sure to where) (see comment below) - Insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, WP:NEO, etc. Absolutely doesn't merit a stand-alone article. The question is what the best redirect target is. Merchandising perhaps? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources? -- GreenC 13:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Cardamom and Masem: Clearly not well enough. Taking another look, factoring in what's already linked here, I see my delete !vote was too hasty. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find sources for this such as:

Also, the article title should stay as toyetic per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody talks about toyeticness and we shouldn't go inventing words to satisfy a lesser rule. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is of use to WP:GAMES in providing knowledge about how some games come to market where others fail. Still needs work to make it truly useful to a casual reader but that's a different discussion. Cheers - Mattwheatley (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Sources are available by looking at Google Books search. Need to be added to the article but not reason to delete it.

How to Write for Animation, Penguin, 2003
The Last Great American Picture Show, Amsterdam University Press, 2004
Flash of Genius: And Other True Stories of Invention, Macmillan, 2008

..many more. -- GreenC 13:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Senate Bill 166

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

Queried speedy delete for "individual senate bills are not notable". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete If you look at the page history, I prodded the article with the reason "individual senate bills are not notable". The author then tagged the article A7--author requests deletion. I don't think there's an issue here? Can the author not contest a Prod by requesting deletion? The author also expresses desire for deletion here. Valfontis (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it. User:Valfontis is right. I created the article, but than we had a discussion, I voted to delete it. She knows alot about the legislative bills, and this does not belong on Wikipedia. Please delete this article without a discussion. and I am sorry for being rude to you Valfontis afew days ago, it was wrong, and I am sorry for being rude to you about this, but i understand why this should be deleted, so hopefully you can forgive me sooner or later. I am the creator, and I vote it for deletion. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a rough consensus that unenacted Bills introduced into a legislature are not inherently individually notable. There is, however, certainly no consensus that they are inherently non-notable. I could name unintroduced draft Bills that satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. CSD A7 is certainly not applicable because it does not apply to documents. The only creative works that can be speedily deleted for lack of importance are music albums. This is because admins are felt to be generally unable to assess the significance of other works without assistance. This Bill has received coverage. It seems to me that the correct approach may be to keep this article or redirect and merge it into a list of Oregon Bills, which will presumably satisfy LISTN. James500 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I initially put this up for proposed deletion instead of speedy, in case my knee-jerk reaction was wrong (many of the creator's articles have been less-than-notable). I don't believe, however, that there is such a list of Oregon Bills. (Feel free to look around Template:Oregon legislation to be sure.) It could possibly summarized in 78th Oregon Legislative Assembly, but I think this is more of a "goofy legislation" curiosity and footnote and not even worthy of mention there. (not that this is all a valid, *ahem* metric, for deletion discussions, even the Reddit thread on the bill only has 12 comments.) It is already mentioned appropriately at Metrication in the United States. By the end of the session I'm going to assume this hasn't gained any traction. Oregon's got bigger trout to fry at the moment. But I could be wrong. I see no reason not to let this AfD run its course but procedurally it's just kinda weird. P.S. The bill numbers get reused so if this stays, it needs disambiguation unless it reaches the level of Oregon Senate Bill 100 or whatever.
- Also, I meant {{db-g7}}, obviously that's the author requests deletion one, not {{db-a7}}, sorry for the mixup. Valfontis (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to see my contributions on Wikipedia, you may be free to do so. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per nominator's request. Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Lord

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

Withdrawn by nominator Flat Out let's discuss it 05:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NARTIST and doesn't have secondary sources to support WP:GNG

WP:NARTIST requires:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
I have removed sources about other artists and have deleted unsourced content but the article creator has reinstated the content without discussion.

The subject of the article doesn't meet 1, 2, 3, or 4. and with most sources being notes on small exhibitions. The article lacks significant reviews and/or interviews and there is nothing of note written by an independent source. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Out, I am not ignoring the so called concerns of ‘other’ editors, namely yourself; I was appalled and insulted by your brutal handling of my article. As a first time contributor you have turned my efforts into an unpleasant experience.

When I began writing the article I received nothing but good advice, constructive criticism and encouraging words from all the other reviewers/editors that provided feedback, even if it was declined twice, they motivated me enough to keep going and provided instructions that helped me to build a better article. I received comments like “you are heading in the right direction..” or “I don’t want to decline the article because with some adjustment it could be accepted”. Other reviewers/editors helped me with the technical issues on how to link properly and provide citations and how to format correctly.

I sought advice from the Teahouse and received constructive feedback again. I worked on my article laboriously to ensure I followed Wiki guidelines and rules. All the work paid off as it was then accepted on 1 March as a ‘Start Class’ article. I am well aware that it is just a start and believe that many articles commence very basically, but given the chance I could build it to become a very well constructed Wikipedia.

Then you came along ‘Flat Out’ and stripped my article down, no explanation, not offering advice or suggestions on how it could be fixed, just deleting 3 quarters of it, leaving a meaningless skeleton. Your methods were brutal and insulting. I don’t believe you are following correct protocols in how to handle new contributors, are you supposed to scare people away, put them off enough so they don’t continue their efforts to contribute or become new editors or Wikipedia authors? To quote wiki guidelines when thinking about deleting an article “The fact that you haven’t heard of something, or don’t personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion.”

I am in fact a writer and since January 2014 have published 64 out of 65 reviews on Theatre / Music / Travel and Events). After your first edit of my work I continued to work hard to ensure that my article was notable and reliable. I have been researching the artist for about 8 months now and have a lot of material and resources, but I have been careful as to how I add them to Wiki, wanting to stick to the rules.

I changed the article and I deleted paragraphs that were truthful; yes he does combine live music with art exhibitions a lot and it’s a great mutual support of local artists, both musicians and painters a like, but I had less reliable sources for these sections and the list of 44 exhibitions the artist has participated in, I pulled that down, although these were accepted initially. I understand that many galleries have closed and it is hard to find references that are reliable when they are no longer in operation.

I was happy with my amendments then out of nowhere, no explanation, no feedback you tore my article to bits AGAIN – from 16 reliable references you stripped it down to 6 references and 10 lines of writing, despicable handling of a person’s hard work. Bully tactics again. You are not even credible in your amendments as the first time you damaged my article you left paragraphs and references in there, saying that they were the only reliable sources. The second hacking of my work you removed those very paragraphs you left there in the first place. How can I not think you are just attacking it for the sake of it without any logic or reason.

Not only are you undermining me, but you undermine the judgement of your fellow editors, whom found the article worthy of start class. You are condescending to me and to them, it seems very much like power play to me, you seem to only be exercising your authority for the sake of it. As for your concern about my relationship with Lord where you have quoted “I also wonder what your relationship to Lord is seeing as he is not a notable artist in Australia”. As a start I don’t know Josh Lord personally, but I keep myself totally informed and up to date with all matters pertaining to art in Melbourne and Australia, and I am particularly interested in the artists that take the next step and attempt to seek work abroad. I regularly attend gallery openings and have a great understanding of what local artists are doing.

As you insult the artist once again by saying 'he is not a notable artist in Australia' – he is in fact notable in Australia and in many parts of the world. The artist does in fact meet the WP:NARTIST criteria. 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers and successors. YES

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. YES

3. He is not the subject of an independent book or feature length film NO (Neither are many visual artists that I know of).

4. The person’s work (or works) (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition YES, 44 exhibitions in fact, Australia and worldwide. (c) Has won critical attention YES.

I proved all the above by referencing quotes from the Wall Gallery owner – by displaying that he has partaken in worldwide exhibitions and galleries, by showing that a huge volume of his works have been sold by world premier auction houses and by showing that his work was featured as part of the Design Files magazine, this is notable.

This is why I reinstated the content that you deleted of my work, I believe your action was unjustifiable and somehow vindictive, a personal attack, on me, on the artist and on the judgement of your peers.

You continue to insult by saying that “most sources are notes on small exhibitions”. Is that right? SMALL? At Lords latest solo exhibition at D11 in 2014 80% of his work was sold. The opening was jam packed with attendees and the red dots were going up by the minute. Not small at all. An artist is lucky to sell 1 or 2 pieces of work at a solo show. Exhibiting in galleries in Amsterdam and the USA is not small either – In fact if you read any of my writing and clicked on any of the links you would have understood that Walls Gallery was an exhibition of 19 artists from all over the world, not small at all. Remember the quote I referenced - Wall's Gallery wrote, "With ' Thrill & Suspense ' Walls Gallery presents its new exhibition of works by 19 young and talented artists. Hereby I like to give special attention to Stephen Elledge (USA) , Rolina Nell (NL) and Josh Lord (AUS). These three artists have made their mark abroad and are now shown for the first time in Amsterdam, and that in Walls Gallery."

Let me also say that in my continued research of the artist I have learnt early on that he won two Octavian Art grants – 1 in 2000 to exhibit in UK and Berlin, the other in 1997 to exhibit in the US. Finding reliable sources for these has been hard, that’s why they are not in the article. Also missing from the article is the fact that Lord has completed 6 public commissions; 3 in Melbourne and two in 1997 – The Master Vision in New York and the International House in New York, another at Ronald McDonald House in Hong Kong. I am just trying to source reliable material for these.

So I have just about given up hope and I know that the article will be deleted. I started this project very enthusiastic, wanting to become a wiki author and put my own experience and writing into good use, very ready to contribute to Wiki. I believe they are seeking more female contributors and I am female. But thanks to you I have now been discouraged and deflated. Due to your approach I have no desire to attempt anymore wiki articles, I will use other avenues to write about art. So thank you for your feedback. How Wikipedia allows you to treat new (and existing) contributors like this is beyond my understanding. You are a poor promotion for what wiki stands for.

WriteaboutArt (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toyetic (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the keep arguments are essentially, "This is useful", which is in direct contradiction to WP:NOTMANUAL. It's not that the encyclopedia shouldn't be useful, just that being useful is, by itself, insufficient reason to keep an article. It must also be verifiable and notable, and the keep arguments don't speak to that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of common cold drugs

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

Unreffed. We already have cough medicine.

J Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cough is not the same as a cold. References demonstrating that the list satisfies WP:LISTN are easy to find - see NHS choices, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, a quick look at the name, "common cold drugs" - what does that mean? Drugs that give or drugs that cure the common cold. A quick look some of the unreferenced entries does not confirm they are related to the common cold for either reason! Perhaps categorization s a much better idea, but wouldn't "common cold remedies" or similar be preferable to the present title? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the title - your suggestion was in my mind too. Changing the title does not require deletion, and so I've moved to list of remedies for the common cold. This wording also makes it clearer that we're talking about the common cold rather than common remedies. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you find there is no remedy for love or the common cold. It would be unencyclopedic to suggest otherwise. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need redundant, poorly updated medical articles that don't offer utility to the reader beyond what other articles offer. I might be slightly on the fence if this was a well-maintained and sourced artice, but it's not - some of the things mention aren't at all common, and some aren't even commercialised yet - and I doubt this article will ever be good, useful, or even have an adequately defined scope. That (except for the scope bit...) wouldn't make me want to delete most non-medical articles, but I think we have a bit of an obligation to treat articles about human health differently than articles about pokemon. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to Cough medicine which actually contains high quality references. An article on treatment of the common cold would be reasonable. This content is not good however as a list. It might give the impression that they are either recommended or shorten the duration of infection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment....Ummm Doc James are you aware you nominated this?, You can't really !vote twice unfortunately, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is not a vote. I am sure only one will be counted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically anything you write above is a !vote, Some editors do forget so just assumed you had but ah well, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 03:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with assessment by Doc James, above. This page is a recipe for problems, at least inherently, at this point in time. — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If nothing else, WP:TNT. Unclear title, unclear and/or inaccurate subject definition, unreferenced, a mix of active ingredients and brand names with varied applicability... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework and rename (again). Remedy#Medicine (a disambiguation page) links Cure; but there is no cure for the common cold. The products listed may alleviate symptoms and often provide comfort to the afflicted. The NHS page linked above starts off "You should be able to treat cold symptoms..." (emphasis mine). So keep but make clear in the lead that these are treatments to alleviate symptoms, not cures. Also rename (again) to reflect this change of emphasis. -Arb. (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very informative list because folks are often 'prescribed' or recommended an over-the-counter medication and then are told by their health care provider (doctor, nurse, med tech, pharmacist, quack-of-du-jour) that the pills that they are taking are for a 'cold'. Since I double and triple check medications of myself and family members, and they tell me that they are taking 'cold' medicine and I see that they are taking something that is other than cold medicine, I tell them to ask their doctor about the med. Maybe none of you 'guys' get talked down to in medical consultation interactions with less than full disclosure, but since I am an older woman, I sometimes get a pat on my head and told not to worry about what the doctor is giving me for my 'nerves' or that 'cold'. A list on Wikipedia may just alert some people to double check what they are thinking is cold medicine....it does need work... Bfpage |leave a message 22:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Mehta

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

Not really a bio-story and imho never going to be one. I moved the notable issue to Jodhpur National University where imho it belongs Govindaharihari (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - any discussion of this guy should be on the university's page, no evidence he himself is notable. Seems pretty clear how this should be treated per WP:ONEEVENT Fyddlestix (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A classic single-event 'biography' containing no biographic detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Tisdel

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

Appears to be a non-notable person, despite peripheral involvement in a notable event. Tiny bit of newsy coverage around her suing the filmmakers of a film based on the event, but nothing lasting and/or focused on her. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep there is a lot of public interest in this person as she was highly involved in a triple homicide and the following events, as well as portrayed in an Academy Award winning film. Should also be noted the nominator put the article up for deletion after an edit dispute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HesioneHushabye (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, with apologies to the article creator who is doing yeoman's work trying to piece together content from a few sources into a meaningful biography. Unfortunately, accident reports and sources like mylife.com are not acceptable for a BLP. The article is mostly content from Brandon Teena, or gleaned from the film Boys Don't Cry. There's not much more to say about Lana Tisdel beyond her involvement in this very sad event.- Mr X 02:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was built from Lana and her mother and sister's perspective and contains information you won't find on Brandon Teena's page. HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would suggest a POVFORK which is undesirable in a neutral encyclopedia.- Mr X 02:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the page used to be redirected to Brandon Teena's page, when it shouldn't. There is information about Lana that should be on it's own page and not on Brandon's page.HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per MrX. I searched for in-depth multiple independent references to try to establish the notability of this person and did not find any, other than mentions about the event, the lawsuit, relation to the film. So WP:BLP1E applies.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well your google search isn't going to help when the murders took place in 1993, before the internet. the only good articles you will find are ones from major sites with archives available like New York Times [28], Los Angeles Times [29] or Chicago Tribune [30] (which are located in the article).

here is a portion of Lana Tisdel from the 1998 documentary about the murders [31] and here is a link to the real Lana's facebook page (now Lana Bachman, living in Centralia, Kansas [32]. If you do a simple book search through google books, you will find Lana Tisdel in over a dozen of them (which includes magazine articles, like [33] and [34] HesioneHushabye (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose, but still my sense is this person was a one-time participant in a once-hot story, which has been somewhat sustained because there was a movie adaptation, then a lawsuit, but still it looks like a one-event to me. There are other ways to examine whether this article belongs here. One way is to try to fill in the rest of the sentence: Lana Tisdel is notable for.... Now, I am wondering how you might complete that sentence; What is she notable for? Another way I have, which I know is an unofficial method, but I have often used it as a way to get a sense of how notable a subject is, by examining pageviews; here, this article crawls along with 1-5 pageviews a day, suggesting a severe drought of eyeball traffic, except of course for the deletion discussion in the past day or so. My advice would be, if you wish to keep this subject alive in Wikipedia, to add well-referenced comments to the Brandon Teena article, but to have a separate article on one of the participants in that tragedy, really, it is kind of original research and undue coverage, bordering on turning Wikipedia into a blogsite or newspaper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Teena is deceased, and only his information and his family should be mentioned on his page. Lana is alive, and her mother and sister were involved in everything and that information can be on Lana's page. Also, this page didn't exist until Tuesday, so it hardly has time to have page views. If you read the article, it clearly states Lana Tisdel is an American woman whose early life and involvement with the 1993 murder of Brandon Teena was chronicled in the 1998 documentary The Brandon Teena Story and the 1999 film Boys Don't Cry. She was portrayed in the film by Chloë Sevigny, who was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance as Tisdel. Also, in doing research on the subject, there are posts on various message boards wondering what happened to "the real Lana", people craving for information on her after watching the film, but this information has not been grouped together like it could be on Wikipedia. To call it a one-time event doesn't apply when there are multiple books and movies about Lana Tisdel that people watch/ read unknown times daily. 15:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You did not respond to my questions in my previous post, but rather simply reiterated parts of the wiki article on Tisdel. Regarding your comment that "Brandon Teena ... only his information and his family should be mentioned on his page", well, what is the logic of that? Isn't the Tisdel stuff part of the Teena story? I don't see why you can't include facts about Tisdel that you feel are relevant to the Teena page, which gets hundreds of daily pageviews. I understand how you can be attached to a particular subject -- I have had articles that I spent a week on, deleted -- so I understand how you may feel. It is hard getting distance and perspective on a subject which you are evidently quite close to, but you might find that, over time, if this article gets deleted, if your experience parallels mine, that you will begin to see the wisdom about Wikipedia's rules, and accept this wisdom, and from a more detached and objective state you may find that you are happier overall.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense, you asked me to state why she's notable and I did. and no, Lana's information about her life and her family's involvement should be on her own page, not on Teena's page. if you watched the video I posted on Youtube (just posted December 2014, it has over 4,000 views. [35] HesioneHushabye (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not explain why she's notable. Marie Curie won a Nobel Prize; Karyn Marshall was world weightlifting champion; these and many other notable women did notable things, such as making scientific discoveries or breaking down gender barriers. What did Lana Tisdel do, create, write? She was involved with a murder victim. So, that's the story? You've got two pages of text to say essentially that? As I'm trying to say, you are too close to this subject to see things objectively. Also, YouTube is not a reliable source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well Lana Tisdel had an Academy Award-winning movie made about her, yes it's Brandon Teena's story, but the film focuses on the relationship between Brandon and Lana. The fact that these people, and this story, is very popular and well-known is not up for debate. a simple google search of "Lana Tisdel" shows books, photos, magazines, and videos of her. HesioneHushabye (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The multiple books and movies aren't about Lana Tisdel, they are about Brandon Teena. They certainly all mention Tisdel, but only as Teena's girlfriend. Not in her own right. They similarly mention Teena's mom and Teena's killers - we could just as well write those three articles, except most of their content would again be not about their titular subject, but about Brandon Teena. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are false, the book All She Wanted is a biography of all the people involved, and especially the Tisdel family. Lana and her mother are featured prominently in the film. There should be Wiki articles on all of the subjects, there certainly are numerous articles on Wikipedia about murder victims and their killers. It's actually quite upsetting that the murder events don't even have their own page. and Lana and Brandon Teena's relationship and the dynamics between them are hugely popular, and studied by LGBT researchers, which is noted in the many books and magazine I linked to. HesioneHushabye (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sufficiently notable as a result of the BLP1E murder, the film performance, articles in trans friendly magazines, and in scholarly academic works. NYT shows five uses [36]. The story is important to the trans dialogue. Found in a large number of trans-related magazines and books, and also in general non-fiction serious books. [37] signed releases for publicity and use of her story. [38] details her lawsuit to put the genie back in the bottle. Her damages were nominal - based on her being depicted as a lesbian to some extent. [39] is a scholarly work (UMass Press) and is salient here ... and Lana is key to that book. [40] is for an event other than the "film" ... [41] from Columbia University Press also covers Lana in detail. Large amounts of coverage in mass media, not just about the murder (BLP1E fails) but about gender issues in general, and multiple mentions in scholarly books published by university presses seems to make "notable" dead cert. Collect (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those sources too; they're really mentions. The subject of the story is not Tisdel but the murder and trans-gender issues. I still don't think anybody can adequately complete the sentence Lana Tisdel is notable for....--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yeah well when an actor is hired to portray you in a film and you become an icon in the LGBT community like Lana Tisdel, please let me know Tomwsulcer. HesioneHushabye (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is plenty notable to have an article. In addition, the third criteria for WP:One-event is not met for it to be a one-event because the story is significant. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources, passes WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Lana is clearly notable, this is such a clear case of WP:GNG. non-notable person, does not apply to someone involved in a much featured event.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a majority here in favour of keeping, but not sufficient to constitute a decisive consensus. Michig (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yulchon

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I reviewed the prior deletion discussion, and all I will say is that it totally ignored notability guidelines. The company is mentioned in passing in one reliable source. That's it. If other sources exist, nobody has added them to the article. If it has high profile employees, it is irrelevant - perhaps said employees are notable, but their notability does not transfer to their workplace, not in the absence of sources. Finally, the unverifiable claim that it is large is nothing but a variation of WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Courtesy ping User:Whpq, User:Aka042 _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the six largest firms in Korea, according to the Korea Times. The argument, made by Whqp at the last AfD, that this firm is likely, on account of its size, to have received significant coverage in Korean language sources is perfectly valid and based on WP:NRVE. Nor is there any deadline for the addition of such sources. The article in the Korea Times is not the only source in the article. There is, for example, an article in ALB Legal News. In any event, WP:BEFORE says that it is not sufficient for nominators to look at what the nominator calls the "references, external links, etc." in the article without also looking for sources with a search engine. James500 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We need to be mindful of systemic bias. It is very likely that non-English sources are available. That was my opinion at the previous AFD, and it is still the one I maintain in this second nomination. Thanks for the courtesy ping. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "one of the six largest in Korea" establishes notability. Remember that the purpose of the GNG is to "avoid indiscriminate inclusion", not to exclude subjects that should plainly be covered. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing admin. Please note that this is not a vote, and no proper arguments have been presented. At best, an argument has been made that better sources may exist. Well, perhaps - but such sources need to be presented. Otherwise no article could be deleted, as one could claim that better sources exist for any AfD topic. I have ensured that WikiProject Korea has been notified through Article Alerts feature, and if any of their members finds a better source, they would/will presumably comment. In light of no such comments, I cannot but conclude that better sources do not exist. As for "6th biggest in Korea", there's no "x-largest in Fooland" provision anywhere in Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Just like in the first discussion, we are seeing nothing but an invalid WP:ITSIMPORTANT statements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Your claim that no proper arguments have been presented would hold some water if the editors participating in this discussion offered no sources; that is not the case here. The reality of the English language Wikipedia is that topics that don't receive a lot of English language are under-represented because of editor population. Korean topics will not get as much attention, and I would venture to say that in the area of Korean topics, law firms would lag way behind in editor interest than say K-pop stars. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Whpq: But the editors participating here offered no new sources. Not a single one. If I am missing them, please list them here. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've explained the difficulty in sourcing. And it is my position that the sourcing that is present is sufficient to indicate that more could be found by somebody with the appropriate language ability and desire to dig. It's clear that you don't agree so there's really not much more to discuss at this point, and an admin will make the appropriate determination. -- Whpq (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, as your logic could be used to justify all articles which can be expected to be based primarily on non-English sources. We, however, need to prove that said sources exist - otherwise notability would stop applying to such topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Piotrus appears to be missing my policy-based reference to the spirit of the GNG (including a quote from it!). Since we are WP:NOTBURO, it is the spirit of the rule that matters, rather than its mere letter. I would further suggest that Piotrus review the text that WP:ITSIMPORTANT links to, which - by its own terms - allows claims of importance if they are supported "by common sense". That link's purpose is merely to oppose "it's good/bad" comments that have no explanation attached.. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Philosopher Common sense dictates to me that this article is spam. No reliable sources have been presented that deal with the subject outside one or two that do so in passing. It fails our notability guideline, plain and simple. Why would you want to keep it? Because you think it's an important Korean company (ITSIMPORTANT) whose sources exist in Korean (UNPROVEN SPECULATION)? I am sorry, but this is yours (and others) argument as I see it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Piotrus There are two quite good sources in the article which, combined with the fact that the subject clearly merits coverage in the encyclopedia, are more than enough for me. (btw - I note that you are still using ITSIMPORTANT for a principle not remotely supported by that page) Since you are still complaining for sources, I did some quick Google searching on the firm's current and former name (the same searches you presumably did before nominating the article) and found (English search only): – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Global Competition Review thinks the company is important enough to run an article when a new hire is made.
      - Korea Joongang Daily only briefly mentions the firm, but gives objective standards for judging the notability of law firms in Korea (remember that law firms are not the sort of organization that often receives "traditional" media coverage, so such objective criteria are quite relevant).
      - The Legal 500 lists honors won by the firm, including a 13-year listing in the "Top 100 Law Firms in the World" by Global Competition Review and "Employer of Choice" from Asian Legal Business. (This link was to information submitted by Yulchon)
      - A search for Yulchon in The Lawyer brings up 16 results, hidden behind a registration-wall.
      - There's some negative coverate here.
      - Asialaw discussed them in "The Best Law Firms to Work for in Asia-Pacific".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasoning and sources found by Philosopher. Indicates GNG, at least in the legal world. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ADMASQ. ("...employs 310 professionals...", "...One of the nth largest..." puff-blah.) Pax 02:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I have edited the article to change "employs 310 professionals" to "employs more than 360 lawyers", with a 3rd-party source. Is that better? Per WP:ADMASQ, we do allow "legitimate articles about commercial entities." – Margin1522 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the article to be kept, we need to know what makes the company notable. "The firm covers corporate, finance, tax, anti-trust, fair trade, dispute resolution, and intellectual property practices" ...in other words they perform the same dry tasks every other legal firm does. Pax 09:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an argument from WP:BORING, which is not a reason to delete an article. Piotrus has a better argument, that sources in Korean don't count until someone actually finds them. But we don't need sources in Korean because we already have enough sources in English to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense, namely that this firm has been written about in enough depth to write an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, they're being boring does not discount them from also being run-of-the-mill. Pax 06:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have just created an article for Ius Laboris, the international law firm network for employment law. So if that article survives, it will show that this firm is the member for Korea of the world's top-rated network of specialists in employment law. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett M468

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

This rifle isn't in service anywhere and it had better be merged to a paragraph of M4 carbine or M16. As it fails the WP:GNG it shouldn't be a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, subject of AfD has received significant coverage in two non-primary reliable sources such as the following:

Police magazine, a issue of Jane's International Defense Review

That being said my google-fu does not appear to be that strong in this search, as two non-primary reliable sources are good, but three or more would definitely put it over the top. That being said I am inclined to keep this article, and more work can be done to improve it. Otherwise, this article should be redirected and verified to reliable source content should be merged to an article about the 6.8 SPC round.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete My Google-fu detects insufficient "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" for notability. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Barrett REC7 and keep that article (currently also under AfD), or merge both into a new article entitled "Barrett M4 carbines". Pax 02:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you would have to prove that Barrett M4 carbines is a subject notable enough to pass the GNG. The easier solution is to merge both into Barrett Firearms Manufacturing#Products. AadaamS (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was a notable rifle which represents a major development stage in the evolution of modern day small arms and cartridges.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a WP:RS source saying that rifle which represents a major development stage in the evolution of modern day small arms and cartridges? Strong claims require strong sources. AadaamS (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several actually, including Cutshaw's piece in Jane's.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Allameh Tabataba'i University. The history is still available, so if anybody wants to mine this for material to merge, they can. That's something that can be sorted out by normal editorial action and doesn't need AfD input. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allameh Tabatabai Management School

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

It does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I was unable to find a reliable third-party source or significant coverage of this Management School. According to WP:N and WP:ORG, if no reliable third party sources are found then it should not have an article. Mbcap (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Allameh Tabatabai University of which this is a constituant part. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT "This merger caused that the Allameh Tabatabai University evolved as the most eminent university..." The whole article consists of poor ESL grammar and puffery. Article also serving as obvious WP:COATRACK for section named "Notable Alumni" (overwhelmingly red-links at present, with the three "blue" names all apparently receiving their degrees before the 1979 Iranian Revolution, i.e., pre-school-merger). Pax 01:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramya Iyer

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG Ch an der 17:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No mentions in any newspaper or magazines, per Google search. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has done noteable done and also is listed on the pages of those projects wiki. Coke Studio (India) Jackpot_(2013 film) The Film Emotional Atyachar Cpavlankar (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned in reliable sources, fails WP:BIO.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she'a notable singer in india.. Cpavlankar (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to demonstrate this? Rlendog (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, relisting for another 7 days so sources may be provided. Nakon 03:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
below projects have her mentioned Coke Studio (India)

Jackpot_(2013 film) The Film Emotional Atyachar http://www.in.com/photogallery/coke-studio-mtv-episode-7-19924822.html#4 http://cokestudioindia.mobi/season1/ramya-iyer.html?WT.cl=1&WT.mn=Ramya%20Iyer http://article.wn.com/view/2015/02/07/ramya_can_8217t_take_her_eyes_off_trisha/ http://www.hungama.com/artists/ramya-iyer/101154 http://www.artistsrights.org/now-you-see-now-you-dont-by-ramya-iyer-hindi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpavlankar (talk • contribs) 06:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, None of these sources are reliable.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 07:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she's mentioned as an artist on 3 wikipedia artciles already and some of the sources are reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpavlankar (talk • contribs) 07:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, No, these are not reliable. Times of India, The Hindu, India Today, etc are reliable sources.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 07:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ if you dont consider the provided links reliable then those references are atleast certainly considered as independent secondary sources which has her information on it... Coke Studio (India) also has similar reference links used.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.82.105 (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Don't mess, You already voted Cpavlankar. Ch an der 15:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this WP:BLP subject lacks in-depth coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ all reference are on independent sources like its on coke studio wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.111.135 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, strike, You already voted Cpavlankar. Ch an der 15:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K43GZ-D

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

This is a low powered translator tv station which merely repeats programming of Home Shopping Network, apparently without originating any of its own programming. These have generally not been found to satisfy notability under WP:N or WP:ORG in previous AFDs, since the expectation is, that for a presumption of notability absent multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, a broadcast station should both be licensed (as this one is) and originate some of their own programming (which this one apparently never has done). I did not redirect it to H Home Shopping, since for a time it rebroadcast programming of another similar service, "America's Store." Edison (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's never originated a minute of original programming and is pretty much just repeating a satellite tuned to HSN, but it's licensed by the FCC and has a history, as lacking in detail as it is; WP:OUTCOMES suggest we keep it. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OUTCOMES says "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.)" Did you miss the parts about how they do not get kept if they merely rebroadcast programming and originate none? Edison (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience ^t 02:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah James

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

Doesn't meet standards in Wikipedia:Notability (people) — person is a program director at a relatively obscure NGO, no sources *about* her other than brief bios on websites where she has a professional role. More importantly, edit history & talk page both reek of POV arguments & violations of WP:BLP. Super weird article. CircleAdrian (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability.

... and scores more related to CEPR, WTO, Huffington Post, and others. If we deleted articles for POV, there'd be no Wikipedia, and I see no BLP vios. (There has been COI editing and deletions of cited text, though ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, SandyGeorgia. Would also like to hear from folks who don't have history editing the page. CircleAdrian (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have two edits to the page: I restored correctly cited text, and when an editor who acknowledged a COI years ago removed it, I tagged the article and left. I'd like to hear where the BLP vios you allege are. I just looked at article edit history, and find it interesting that an SPA editing only in the area of her current employer (one of several), thinks adding the name of her former employer "maligns". I guess there's something there I don't understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp/Archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources listed by SandyGeorgia. The groups she has worked for are not "obscure" and the second source now in the article is from the Center for Public Integrity, which won a Pulitzer Prize last year. That source gives her significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All but one of those sources itemized above are quote-mined passing-mention sound-bites, with the remaining one specifically about the subject comprising an interview by "a visiting graduate student" in PDF form on what appears to be a faculty-run activism blog. In short, the subject per se is not passing notability muster. Pax 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep since it meets notability according to multiple reliable sources. She was the head of multiple organizations which are also notable themselves. She was and still is active in works involving globalization and this article could possibly even be expanded.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiitra language

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

This article about a constructed language fails notability and verifiability. All of its references are self-referential. It goes into great detail about the structure of the language, but the language is merely a feature of a scifi book, Lamikorda, which is itself at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamikorda). Both articles are written pretty much in-universe, but at least the book article has one outside reference; this Kiitra article has none. There is no evidence that the Kiitra language has been taken note of by any outside source. MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Some external links and a reference have now been added to the article.
- There is an entry for this language at the Conlang Atlas of Language Structures. Kiitra was added to the atlas by a Single Purpose Account which lists the novel's website as their homepage,[42] so I am dubious whether this is an independent reference. The atlas is published by the Language Creation Society, of which the book's author D.R. Merrill is a member.[43]
- There is an entry for this language at the website Of Languages and Numbers. It is not clear who wrote that entry, so it may be a legitimate independent source. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe that if the work of fiction is notable, its canonical conlangs generally deserve an article too (that means articles for Quenya, Tsolyáni, Kesh, Dothraki, D'ni, Na'vi, Furbish, Simlish, etc.), but Lamikorda appears to be an utterly non-notable. Therefore Kiitra does not have a strong claim to notability on this basis. I can't find any other factors that would argue for its notability either. Khemehekis (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Khemehekis. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in the discussion herein. Discussion can always continue on the article's talk page. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apple iCar

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

I do not believe this is notable. It's purely speculative about a car which no-one knows anything about, and so there is no real content to this page. I therefore think it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Keep This is a stub (aka DYK, GA, FA in the making) on a project by a possibly notable company, for which numerous reliable (?) secondary sources (Forbes, TIME, WSJ) are provided. --Gaff (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per multiple sources: [44][45][46][47][48][49], Personally I see no reason to Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confused by your vote, especially given what you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S6 (2nd nomination)... This subject has way fewer RS, and contains much more speculation which is why it should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phone hasen't gained wide coverage and didn't have much RS - All of which this car has, Had this not had wide coverage and alot of RS It would've been an easy delete, Just like had the phone had wide coverage and alot of RS It would've been an easy Keep, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Struck as was perhaps unhelpful and well we all have different opinions and all that. –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources galore per above. By speculation age to source ratio it is not bad here. If the topic is left to stale at only this much content after, say, a year, then we would have a case to delete. But you won't know now. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... even in a year, notable now is notable then. WP:DEFUNCTS and WP:NOTTEMP --Gaff (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a game changer in cars, as iPad has been in (portable) computers.--Lagoset (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Apple does something that actually changes the game in any way other than having other car companies and prospective car companies saying "oops, let's not do that". Guy Harris (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~REDIRECT (I'll switch to redirect/merge, article is still much too speculative but is an OK section of a larger one). Since when was Wikipedia full of unconfirmed speculation? Re-reading WP:CRYSTAL this article should be deleted immediately, for the exact same reason the article Samsung Galaxy S6 was deleted today because it isn't being officially revealed until tomorrow. Sure it has press coverage but until something if officially confirmed, it should be deleted. --> these comments were unsigned by User:EoRdE6

Speedy delete?? Under what CSD criteria?? Check the references for the degree of confirmation in place. Reuters: "Apple studies self-driving car, auto industry source says". This is not same as rumors of royal baby being born with three heads... --Gaff (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that the rationale I see for CSD on Samsung phone was not appropriate, since the times have changed when the AfD discussion occurred and the phone is set to release tomorrow. By this rationale, Apollo 11 would have been deleted on July 15, 1969... --Gaff (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaff: Fixed that thanks. In reply to your note, there are hundreds of sources about the Galaxy S6, but it was deleted because they are rumours and leaks like this. Apollo 11 was confirmed by the government before it launched was it not? The Galaxy S6 could be called the EyeBanana for all we bloody know. Sure I could make an article for the iPhone 6S because sure it will probably happen, and sites already have " confirmed leaks" but until Apple confirms it, the page won't be made. You can argue your logic, but wiki guidelines and rules such as WP:CRYSTAL are more important here. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6: Yeah, you have good point, more I think about it... I can't find much to support that the car would be named iCar... However, there is a gray area between too soon and time for launch. If we insisted that only "officially announced" items get articles, then articles on US foreign policy would be a dry read. --Gaff (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am familiar with WP:CRYSTAL as policy, but there are gray areas for interpretation and that is where things get interesting... --Gaff (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT and merge to Apple_Inc.#Electric_Vehicles. changing my tune, mostly per EoRdE6 and further reading. There is nothing to assert it would be called the iCar. Some sources call it Titan and others CarPlay. So the title of the article is WP:OR. This is just too much speculation for an article, but the reliably sourced aspects discussion would add to the paragraph in the article on Apple_Inc.#Electric_Vehicles.--Gaff (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT and merge to Apple Inc.#Electric Vehicles. Thank you, Gaff, that's the best suggestion I've seen. The rumor is notable, but it's still a rumor; the WSJ article is behind a paywall, so I don't know whether they have any evidence better than "somebody who claims they're from Apple says XXX" or "some unnamed source says they were at Apple and they're doing XXX". Guy Harris (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We shouldn't be second-guessing the RS (that's why we consider them RS in the first place: so they can do the heavy lifting and filter out the BS for us). While redirects are WP:CHEAP, this is a big enough story (given Time, Forbes and the WSJ all instantly pouncing on it) to keep on the deck. Pax 11:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

problem: the WP:RS do not consistently refer to the project as the iCar. That is why I propose merging it. Would you support moving the article to an appropriate namespace? Oh wait, there is none, since there is no agreement as to the name of the car. A merg does not require second guessing or removal of any sourced content, but avoids the WP:OR of presuming the name of the car. For all we know it will be called the "Steve Jobs-mobile". --Gaff (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article to a new name is a Twinkle function; having a less-that-optimal name is not grounds for deleting it. Rather than an AfD, we should be having a discussion about what to entitle it. I propose renaming to "Apple electric car", with "Apple car" redirecting to it, as those are the search terms users are most likely to enter. Pax 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to correct you, moving is not a Twinkle function. Notice it isn't in the Twinkle tab and everyoje has access to it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<forehead smack>. You are right, of course. (My recommendation above stands.) Pax 04:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on the fence about whether to keep it or not, but at the very least, we don't know what the actual branding for the car will be; the article, if kept, should be just "Apple Car", since that's a more "neutral" (for lack of a better word) title than "iCar". EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the concept of a vehicle produced by the company is still in the news weeks after the initial story broke last month. "iCar" is just one possible name, in keeping with the company's previous pattern to have "i"- named products (iMac, iBook, iTunes, iBooks, iPod, iPhone, iPad), and sources do use it on that basis. That doesn't mean we can't move the article to a different title, like "Apple electric vehicle" since the company has said it's more of a minivan than a car. Other appropriate redirects should be created as well, like "Apple electric car", "Apple car", etc. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the company's previous pattern Emphasis on previous, as per Apple TV and Apple Watch, not "iTV" or "iWatch". Perhaps sources that use "iCar" on that basis simply haven't been paying attention.
the company has said it's more of a minivan than a car [Citation needed] for Apple saying anything about any vehicle that they might - or might not! - be developing. Guy Harris (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as above. It's notable, but notable enough for inclusion as a section in an article, not for an article in its own right. Relentlessly (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I believe this car will exist. But that's the issue, it doesn't exist yet an this is speculation, which is explicitly covered in WP:Crystal. This should be merged into the EV section.--Buffaboy (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article and like to highlight few critical points - First In my corrected version I just mentioned apple automobile project (no speculation its confirmed in multiple references forbes etc) it can be anything a car or automobile software or automobile device as different references sources suggest and further mention should be avoided till clear information is available.Second Project Titan code of automobile project was also confirmed and no speculation. Third confirmed part was hiring of experienced auto professionals by apple. The article just mentioned three sets of confirmed information. Issue is now the article is further edited as apple icar electric automobile version also mention about electic minivan , Steve jobs plan of creating cars , production by 2020 all that is speculation and should be removed and only confirmed information should be present in the article.-Optrimes (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your telling me it is "confirmed" yet I can't find where it says that. Could you please support this with links to official sources that clearly say these things are confirmed by Apple. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apple_Inc.#Electric_vehicles. There's no doubt the mainstream press (WSJ, Time, Reuters, Bloomberg, Forbes, etc) has jumped on this. Normally, I would say that meets WP:N in spades, but fundamentally, this is still just a rumor, contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. Whatever is worth saying about it can be said as a section of the Apple article until it actually exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan El-Sallabi

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

No indication of notability, according to unbiased, reliable sources. Links go to primary sources, his patents. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be simply a hard-working university professor with nothing notable about him. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dr. Hassan has contributions to telecommunications protocol and his patents are incorporated into a number products. Also, he received IEEE awards, and I am still in the process of editing the article. Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what kind of world do we live in where professors with over 100 scientific papers and numerous patents are not considered 'notable' but every artist and singer gets a full Wikipedia page? How is it so that the internet gets deprived of exposure to such scientific minds because they are not 'notable' enough? I am sure many readers among the 7 billion humans would be interested to know more about scientists than about singers, dresses and useless pop culture and memes.

Even so, I am still in the process of writing the article, and consolidating sources, so let's have a bit longer window to do that. Thanks Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Excluding works he edited, rather than wrote, his h-index seems to be under 20. Not quite enough for WP:PROF. Everything else indicates a normal academic career; nothing special to satisfy WP:PROF. I don't care much for the hagiographical tone of the article either. -- 120.17.62.134 (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He appears to be a successful working researcher but nothing in the article rises to the level of notability and the citation record from his Google scholar profile is not quite strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Dr. Hassan's awards extend to IEEE and Nokia Foundation awards, and his work was incorporated into products that affect people's lives such as emergency services (911 services for example in San Francisco) and communications standards such as 3gpp, as well as working in research with key scientists in the world like Dr. Paulraj, the inventor of 4G.

I don't understand why some individuals in Wikipedia think that such an established scientist is not worth the few kilobytes his article will take on Wikipedia storage! Wikipedia moderators are not arbitrators on what the rest of the world should or should not read about. This is borderline censorship. As long as the article is well-referenced and provides an obvious point on a scholar with real-life achievements, then I don't see why some Wikipedia moderators don't think he's worth the article kilobytes.

Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at David Eppstein's Wikipedia page, I don't see anything in it that exceeds what Dr. Hassan's achieved. If David Eppstein can have a Wikipedia page for one award and a few publications, then I don't see why Dr. Hassan can't. Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a relevant argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but David Eppstein has a very substantial h-index of 56. The subject of this article does not. -- 120.17.99.24 (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Note for deletion? Why? This is my professor in my university and he's one of the best here. He represented Finland why he's not from Finland natively and that's enough for him to be noteable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.214.85 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — 77.86.214.85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:FALLACY. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Nice article and I vote NO to delete it. I'm wondering why David Eppstein who is a computer science professor vote to delete an article about a scientist ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.211.45 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC) — 184.75.211.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ADHOM. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So after some more digging, I found more evidence in support of keeping Dr. Hassan's page.

Dr. Hassan served as a Task Leader on Channel Modeling Work Package of IST-WINNER EU funded Project. The channel modeling research group was from industry (Nokia Research Center and Elektorbit Co.) and Academia (Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden; Ilmenau University, Gemany; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland in addition to his group from Helsinki University of Technology, Finland). He was also proxy of Helsinki University of Technology, Finland in this project.

Also here's his prestigious IEEE Award:

File:Dr._Hassan_El-Sallabi_IEEE_Award.jpg

According to Wikipedia's criteria of "notability", 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

This criteria is in Dr. Hassan's favor due to his work adopted by Remcom Co. and in WINNER project as the work was under his academic capacity.

http://www.ist-winner.org/about.html

As a person from academia with industrial project; which is a consortium of 41 partners co-ordinated by Nokia Siemens Networks working towards enhancing the performance of mobile communication systems.

Also, all of these references:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pekka_Kyoesti/publication/224645000_Wideband_Spatial_Channel_Model_for_MIMO_Systems_at_5_GHz_in_Indoor_and_Outdoor_Environments/links/02bfe50d0689fc6211000000.pdf

http://www2.tu-ilmenau.de/nt/generic/paper_pdfs/WWRF15-WG4-12-Overview%20of%20WINNER-Jamsa.pdf http://www.ist-winner.org/DeliverableDocuments/D5.4.pdf http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2006/isbn951228247X/article5.pdf

It's simply not acceptable that academics with a lot less achievements are featured on Wikipedia, but Dr. Hassan is not.

Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is hardly a "prestigious IEEE Award," just an ordinary "best paper" award from a conference. Most academics get a few of those. It's nothing out of the ordinary. In addition, access to this award makes me wonder about a close connection between the subject and the author of the article. -- 120.17.99.24 (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non-constructive response, with an implicit accusation, but I shall rise above the level of accusation and simply dissect your argument: First of all, the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society is actually one of the highest-regarded awards in the field of Electrical Engineering. You do not have to be an Electrical Engineer to understand its value; however it does not put anybody in a position to belittle an award they don't fully understand. IEEE is the largest and most prestigious Electrical Engineering body in existence, and its awards are highly sought after by electrical engineers around the globe. Therefore your comment about the award unfortunately does not help your argument, but actually jeopardizes it. IEEE.

Secondly, the accusation about conflict of interest is simply out of the blue, and the rebuttal is easy: Have a LinkedIn account? Simply visit Dr. Hassan El-Sallabi's page there, you don't even have to connect to him, it's there for public, accessible by any logged in LinkedIn user. Such a simple rebuttal, and the award being accessible over the internet to anybody, means you are throwing accusations left and right with no verification whatsoever, please stop jeopardizing your own argument. Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the IEEE, in fact. With my own set of awards. Which do not make me notable. -- 120.17.125.96 (talk)contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider an IEEE technical field award to be contributing evidence of notability, and an IEEE fellow membership to be strong evidence. But as you say, this is a best paper award, in this case for "the best paper relating to Propagation published in the Transactions on Vehicular Technology". If the article is to be kept, it can be included in the article, but I don't think it contributes much towards notability. It's not a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" of the type described by WP:PROF#C2. Since the article about me was mentioned earlier: I have four best paper type awards. I list them in my cv, because one lists everything in the cv. The editors of the article here have not deemed them important enough to mention, and (although they don't need my approval for this editorial choice) this seems reasonable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented by 7 awarded patents, incorporation of Dr. Hassan's research into actual products with real life impact (Ambulances in San Francisco for example), as well as telecommunication standards work, all of these pieces come together to support Dr. El-Sallabi's notability case. Also, whoever adds 'conflict of interest' as a comment in the original article: Please stop that, I proved to you the award image is publicly available, I'm starting to think there is an unexplained bias here, and I genuinely starting there is another motive. There is simply no conflict of interest in utilizing a publicly available image. Period. Moreover, there are no puffery terms. If there are, identify them specifically please. General broad comments are not helpful without pinpointing the particular phrase that doesn't actually exist so far as my knowledge of the article exists. Thundervoul (talk)

Since you don't seem to understand what it means: "Conflict of interest" means that we think the person writing the article has a close connection to the subject of the article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, and that's not possible when the author of the article is trying to make the subject look good. Additionally, autobiographies are strictly forbidden. (So, in case it wasn't clear why your mentioning the article about me was so far off-target: other people edit that article. I don't and shouldn't, and its existence does not have very much to do with my opinions about notability of other academics.) As for puffery, it means writing glowingly about things like "7 awarded patents", "real life impact", "standards work" as if those are unusual features of this case rather than things many academics do all the time. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the meaning of conflict of interest, but it does not apply to me. I noticed that some contributors to this page claimed they were students of Dr. Hassan, but they are not the authors of the article; I am. I have written the article to be neutral to the best of my knowledge, and you are welcome to point out where in the article was neutrality violated. As for puffery, note that the examples you've given are not in the real article, they are only in this page, in which we are just discussing the article in a free-form discussion. Therefore the terms "standards work", "real life impact" are not in the article, so your argument there is invalid. The phrase "award patent" is not a puffery term, it just means the subject's patent was in fact accepted, not rejected, and not in pre-application phases. Please do exert an effort to distinguish between the actual article and the discussion here, and then kindly show me where in the article were puffery terms clearly used, and where exactly was neutrality allegedly violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundervoul (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has strict criteria for articles about academics; the criteria can be found at WP:PROF. IMO Dr. El-Sallabi does not meet these criteria. Note that he is not a "professor"; his academic position is "associate research scientist," which apparently does not even count as a faculty member. His publications are respectable but not heavily cited enough to meet WP:PROF. I'm sure he is a good scientist and does important work, but at this point it does not rise to the level of inclusion in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is the problem mainly with the classification of the article itself being WP:PROF? If so, what other classification exists?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm all for scientists having WP pages but the current article could only be let if it was completely rewritten as per above issues noted. A) COI is a major issue here and is clearly reflected in the article's style. B) Original research/use of primary sources is a major problem (cite review of patents not the patents themselves). C) Undue/excessive detail damages all efforts to consider the page noteworthy. Sorry Thundervoul, the article could be put in your user space as a draft for you to work on it until it's ready as an WP article. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely would like clarification about the points you raise. A) I understand that some commentators here pointed out their own relationship with the subject of the article, but I am not, and I still would like the commentators who raised the COI issue to point exactly or at examples of where this was manifested 'in the original article'. C) No problem, just give me an example or two of excessive details that are not valid for the article in question. I am waiting.

Delete per WP:PROF where the subject fails all 9 criteria. On a side note, with the friends this page sees to have, it does not need any foes... Tigraan (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience ^t 02:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Toggery Five

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

States in the article that songs were not successful, therefore may not satisfy notability criteria for musical groups. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that they were prominent in the Manchester Beat scene. Please actually read the article. Not all bands on wikipedia were successful.

@TheGracefulSlick (unsigned): They weren't successful, but only four sources even mention them which were referred to in the article, and two out of those four sources have exactly the same text, suggesting that they were copied from one another or from an external source. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 23:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't even your argument. Your issue was with their prominence. I suggest you choose which argument you want to use. I can get more references from liner notes if that is your only issue.

Successful songs have more references to them in articles, etc. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 02:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The band recorded the first version of the #1 hit by T×he Hollies, "I'm Alive ". Is that not prominent enough for you?

I believe that the word "you" is used incorrectly in this situation, as we do not make decisions on my opinion, but as per WP:NOTABILITY policy. And it's only a first version; that alone shouldn't be enough to establish notability. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 02:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only? It inspired the Hollies to record it and become national hits. Many bands on here have no hits and no influence on others, yet are still on Wikipedia. Along with that, it was the starting band for members of Jethro Tull and other successful careers.

Keep and improve. The band was significant at the time - being given an early Keith Richards song, for example, and containing Mick Abrahams and Clive Bunker, both notable later members of Jethro Tull. Supporting evidence is that the band has an article at Allmusic - http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-toggery-five-mn0002142041/biography - which many musicians with WP bios lack. The current article is somewhat blog-sourced and written in a non-encyclopedic style, with spelling errors etc., but those faults can be easily addressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An influential, if not seminal, band - albeit that the members were better known for their later work. - Arjayay (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is agreed my article can stay, is it ok for someone to remove the verification on the page? I won't do so without permission. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 3:46 March 1, 2015

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ghmyrtle's rationale. Notability is somewhat borderline according to our usual standards for bands--no album, no charting singles--but reliable source coverage exists, the content is valuable and relevant to our understanding of the Manchester music scene, and it's not apparent that this content could be readily repurposed in some other article. So I think we're better off keeping it and improving the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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