Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 April	1 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Donald Trump#Personal life. J04n(talk page) 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Trump

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

Notability is not inherited. Her minimal career does not establish any sort of notability independent of her famous father (and her less-famous mother), and the most extensive previous version of the BLP (which was deleted for copyvio) didn't do anything to advance the idea that she met the notability threshold. (The copyvio was from The Frisky, which doesn't inspire confidence.) Horologium (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Saying she can't inherit notability doesn't mean it doesn't exist. She has plenty of her own coverage (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and clears WP:GNG handily, if not WP:BAND. ~~Advise the nominator to run WP:BEFORE checks more thoroughly next time.~~ Dea db eef 04:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do run "before" checks before nominating, thank you. However, I don't consider "thefrisky" or the Daily Mail to be reliable sources, and none of the sources you cite do anything to establish her notability independent of her father. The HuffPo piece is nothing more than a gossipy little item about offhand comments her mother made, the IBT piece refers to her as an "aspiring pop star" (as is any kid who puts together a mix tape or forms a garage band), and the Yahoo!Shine piece (the only one from a reliable source that is substantial enough to qualify as "substantial coverage" and implies notability, through her famous parents) notes that she considers music "just a hobby", which blows a great big hole in your assertion that she meets WP:BAND. Instead of immediately assuming that I am incompetent or failed to do research before nominating this piece of pop ephemera for deletion, maybe you should consider that sourcing is important, and articles about people who are only notable because of their parents don't meet the notability guideline. If the subject actually had a recording career (with songs or albums that charted or were in some way significant), if she had a modeling career that had more than a brief mention in a non-RS pop-culture website, or if she was something more than a college student whose divorced parents are super-famous, you'd have a case to be made that she passes the GNG. None of those conditions have been met, however, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of the cites discusses her in the context of one or both of her parents. In fact, had you read my nomination, you would have noticed that I addressed that link from "thefrisky", and how it had been in an earlier version of the article (as a cut-and-paste, no less). Horologium (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread my reply; I meant that I believed she met WP:GNG and not WP:BAND, not that she met both. Moving on. My position stands at strong keep for the simple reason that she passes WP:42 easily. The point is that she clearly has:

Significant coverage: See the links above. The stories all feature her exclusively (or almost exclusively), and 1, 3, and 4 are substantial in length. Whether they mention her as completely detached from her father is irrelevant; of course he will be mentioned. He's Donald Trump. But the articles themselves are all about her. (A note about the Mail and Frisky: Whether or not they're reliable, they have covered her exclusively, and the Mail at length. And the Mail is a major publication, if a tabloid.)
Reliable sources: I'll grant you that Frisky isn't exactly a journalistic haven, and the Mail is questionable (generously), but collectively there's enough reliable information through all of the sources to constitute a meaty article.
Independent: Obviously, she's not affiliated with them.

All told, she has separate notability from her father by virtue of the collective coverage she has received. Ignoring the fact that she has "Trump" in her name, she has enough coverage to stand against WP:GNG on her own. The fact that she hasn't done anything worthwhile doesn't mean that she isn't notable; that's a fallacy, considering GNG is the standard for inclusion and not the individual's accomplishments.

Other name-clearing notes: I saw that you tagged the copyvio from Frisky; however, that didn't mean that the article shouldn't exist as a whole. I also did not say that you were "incompetent" or "failed to do research". The reason I suggested that you WP:BEFORE more (a comment I now withdraw, as it is clear that you have researched this piece well) was that there were sources outside of what you seemed to be aware of that were viable. I never claimed that you didn't do it at all—but as I said, I withdraw the comment with apologies. No offense was meant.

Anyways, my !vote stands for the reasons given. Dea db eef 22:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant, hold-my-nose keep. The articles Deadbeef has provided are all about her. She even rates a paragraph in Forbes. The fact that the media coverage is because of her father is immaterial. The same could be said of presidential relatives. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure how the Daily Mail is not WP:RS. Seems to be accepted by others in the community. Anyways, going at this from WP:GNG, she meets the threshold. I understand that notability is not inherent, but she IS THE SUBJECT of significant coverage from reliable sources. Inherint notability would be her being notable just for being his daughter WITHOUT having significant coverage. It's like making an article about everyone in a band just because the band is notable. However, each member of the band would be notable if they meet WP:GNG by having the significant coverage. I was able to find this, 2 from Huffington, this, and [1]. While I would love to have this article deleted (just don't personally like the topic), it meets guidelines and should be kept. Could probably be taken down to a stub, though. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marla Maples and/or Donald Trump. Notability independent of her parents is not established in any of the sources. --Crunch (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Does President Obama have children? Wikipedia says no. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the personal section of her father's article. Currently isn't much in the article worth merging. Sarah 04:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect for now, probably to father as he is better known, per user:Sarah, but may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Since the article is only going to be linked from her father and mother's pages, it's a bit obscure. At the moment we have a teenager who can make the tabloids as someone's daughter as an excuse to include some photos of a young lady per WP:HOTTIE. Possible that she may do other things in the public eye (e.g. the upcoming film) that would result in additional coverage and justify an article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jarboe. J04n(talk page) 00:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful People Ltd

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

I earlier deleted this on speedy A9 as it appears the group had no WP article and there was nothing asserted here indicating notability . It has recently been re-created, and I see one of the artists has an article, so I do not know how to interpret the speedy criterion. I send it here, as this is one of the fields where I am not sufficiently knowledgable to proceed further. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable album by a notable artist that is backed by secondary sources and can potentially be expanded upon.--Soul Crusher (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist. No indication of meeting WP:NALBUM. Sources given appear to be either trivial mentions or not reliable sources. noq (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist. Fails WP:NALBUMS Transcendence (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon Sports (retailer)

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

non-notable company. can't see article for the spam. There may be a notable article under the advert, but I couldn't verify it, with what I could verify wasn't in the source. Widefox; talk 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, They are a major running retailer in Massachusetts with a deep history. I took out anything to make the article seem like it is written like an advertisement. Working to make the article neutral. Took out any intricate detail. Starting over to make this article better.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ad issue solved (as per our discussion at User talk:Whoisjohngalt#Adverts), but what's notable? the local business award/review is standard local promo. Having a marathon shop at the end of the course is interesting, and the bomb being outside it is also newsworthy, but encyclopaedic? Widefox; talk 13:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a retailer with a 38-year history and nine locations. Its role in the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings adds to its notability. It's not sufficient by itself, but it adds to it. --Crunch (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stability: International Journal of Security and Development

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

Non-notable new journal established in 2012. Too young to have become notable yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Randykitty (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable yet. Ray^Talk 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & WP:TOOSOON.--JayJasper (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response: This journal is notable despite being young. Its editorial board includes senior policy-makers, and it is pioneering a new model of research which is much more closely engrained with governmental, multilateral and non-governmental entities. In addition to being open access -- making its peer-reviewed research available for free, nor charging authors to contribute -- the journal has a uniquely aggressive impact strategy. Hence, it is notable, and time should be allowed for Stability to be referenced more widely on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.zyck (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are confounding "notability" with "worthy" or "meriting". Notability has a very specific meaning on WP, see WP:N. If the journal is as worthy as you say, then I am sure that soon enough it will be included in major selective indexes and people may even write about it (i.e., "note" it). When that happens, we can have an article (and should have an article). But until then, this is too soon. Similarly, the people on the editorial board may be notable, but notability is not inherited, so that has no bearing on this discussion either. Meanwhile, I would caution you about "seeding" WP with references to your journal, because that may at some point become to be seen as spam and then the URL will be blacklisted. If the journal's articles are relevant, people will add them to articles here eventually. As for notability, whether or not WP links to the journal is absolutely irrelevant.--Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clearly much WP:TOOSOON. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find evidence of indexing in selective databases. It looks like a promising young journal and there has been some independent interest in its launch in the blogosphere, e.g., [2], but blogs are almost always not considered reliable sources, per WP:RS. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has passed for independent reliable sources to discuss this journal, and probably it is too soon for indexing as well. When coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and/or indexing in selective databases occur, it is reasonable to re-create this article. --Mark viking (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Sinclair (fighter)

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and has the usual routine sports coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMMA and nom. Dea db eef 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NMMA. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think the argument about WP:SIGCOV is borderline but lands on the delete side. While routine in nature about his events, what settled it was that very few of the sources have Sinclair as the focus of the article and do not amount to in-depth coverage. Outside of GNG, he does not meet WP:NMMA as stated above. Mkdw ^talk 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Psychotronics. J04n(talk page) 01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotronic weapons

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

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

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

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

POV fork from Psychotronics. Editor engaged in edit warring on both articles to add original research based on sources which don't mention psychotronics at all or do not support the cited facts. Posting on AFD in the hope of a community decision which would lead an uninvolved admin to redirect and lock article. GDallimore (Talk) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect Psychotronics to Psychotronic weapons These users are attempting to censor this material, calling it "POV" despite the fact that it is reflected in hundreds of articles, books published by McMillion and the Harvard Press, and press releases from Vladimir Putin as well as publications from NSA. They are attempting to redirect it to a page about "parapsychology" pseudoscience, which has little or no historical significance for the term.Damonthesis (talk)

The Psychotronics page has almost no relevant information to the term, which describes a 50 year weapons program of the USSR. That page obfuscates its meaning, and attempts to hide the fact that the program is ongoing, noted here http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/06/11061093-reality-check-on-russias-zombie-ray-gun-program?lite

There is zero original research, all sources are directly related to psychotronics. GDallimore appears to have a bias towards censoring historically significant information. The page you are attempting to say this is a "POV fork" of is a completely unrelated subject, related more to the U.S. Psychotronics Association which has nothing to do with the Russian program, which is still ongoing.

A number of editors have "coopted" the term psychotronics, which has a meaningful historical significance in the realm of military research and technology. There are a number of published U.S. Military, U.S. Congressional, and Russian governmental sources referring to the term in the context of a weapons program which began during the Cold War. It appears to me that they do not understand the significance of the term, which is clearly expressed in recent 2012 comments by Vladimir Putin and his Defense Secretary.

Delete - a clear POV fork of the psychotronics article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously one of the editors involved in attempting to censor information about the Russian program, and unsigned. Any normal person reading both articles will see that the psychotronic_weapons article includes globally significant information. The page you are attempting to say it's "forked" from has absolutely no relevance to modern times.Damonthesis (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. It's a POV fork created by Damonthesis in response to having their contributions removed from Psychotronics for reasons of synthesis, original research, reliable sources and neutrality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV. Point in fact, the sources on the psychotronic_weapons page are much better, and much more interesting than the sources on psychotronics. The talk page for psychotronics clearly reflects that these editors don't even have an understanding of what the term means, yet they believe their "information" is historically relevant.Damonthesis (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damonthesis, please assume good faith, remain civil in discussion, and comment on content, not contributors - your personal attacks above are unacceptable, and claims of "censorship" do not help your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my edits cleared, despite being properly sourced and on topic, and then had the page creation for disambiguation completely defaced numerous times. It hasn't been a happy day. Damonthesis (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And redirect your efforts to helping people give good human-harassment research advancements to Wikipedia-Are you Aware {Michigan-Public act 257 of 2003} makes it a felony for a person to "manufacture, deliver, possess, transport, place, use, or release" a "harmful electronic or electromagnetic device" for "an unlawful purpose"; also made into a felony is the act of causing "an individual to falsely believe that the individual has been exposed to a... harmful electronic or electromagnetic device." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.0.56 (talk • contribs)

Also other laws - Do Research Please before gorging 12.196.0.56 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deletion discussions are based around Wikipedia policy, not around the existence or otherwise of laws relating to 'electronic or electromagnetic devices'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user is pointing out significant legislative action related to the topic under discussion. It's further evidence that the weapons exist, and that the biased characterization of the articles should be corrected to follow WP:RS.Damonthesis (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - the legislation [3] says nothing whatsoever about 'psychotronics', 'mind control' or anything of the sort - a "harmful electronic or electromagnetic device" could include all sorts of things, and we don't engage in speculation as to what is meant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly differ from the Psychotronics with its own references. It is clearly not a POV fork of Psychotronics This article show usage of Psychotronics other than medical purpose and has enough references to back up its claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JIM MAC EGG (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — JIM MAC EGG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom/above, see WP:FRINGE as well. Ansh666 03:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost funny that you are calling sources from the Army, Marines, and NSA WP:FRINGE Damonthesis (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that nom (User:GDallimore) and other two delete votes (User:AndyTheGrump and User:LuckyLouie) are actively involved in editing/edit-warring with User:Damonthesis on Psychotronics. Given the above vote by User:JIM MAC EGG, which I'd say is quacking rather loudly, and Damonthesis's very recent (2/3 days ago) account creation, I'm suspicious of socking, not only for JIM MAC EGG but Damonthesis as well. Have you three editors had problems with similar editors in the past? Ansh666 03:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit of history This article and similar ones have always been a target for conspiracy theorists. A related article was deleted some time ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control) (on my suggestion), but the topic was recreated through articles for creation here. Although a total mess at the time, I thought the editor in question had found some good sources so I took it on myself to cut the article down to JUST the reliable sources and had good support from several other editors. The resulting article was pretty bare but at least didn't have any original research and had enough reliable sources to be notable. The article has ben quiet until now and this latest edit war actually started over at Stalking, but moved to psychotronics before this pov-fork. GDallimore (Talk) 11:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What you should be noting is there are three editors ganging up on me, trying to push an article that is clearly substandard and not a representation of the actual entry. I've provided ample sources, from the highest authority, and yet still have my edits deleting, and receive personal attacks from multiple editors. Do you have a WP:GANGINGUPONPEOPLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GANG? See this section. Ansh666 09:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to psychotronics, of which it is an obvious POV fork. I'm not, in principle, opposed to an article on mind control weapons -- but unless there's evidence that meets Wikipedia's evidentiary standards that such a thing exists, it would have to be written in terms of mind control weapons as being a hypothetical technology that has been the subject of discussion, in the same way as time machines or teleportation. -- The Anome (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only an obvious POV fork after the AfD, when numerous editors, including myself, worked to merge prior to this discussion. The information contained in Psychotronic weapons was removed completely prior to the creation of that article. I think a mind control weapons article is a good idea, however the Soviet Psychotronics program, which is at least as significant as MK ULTRA deserves to be prominently displayed in its own article, or in Psychotronics. This group has actively attempted to push information related to the Soviet program to the "nether regions" of that page, despite the fact that it is the predominantly known use of the term today. Damonthesis (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC) The "version" of Psychotronics which caused the new article to be created (after numerous reversions of well sourced MIlitary additions to that page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychotronics&oldid=552867941) Damonthesis (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into psychotronics if there is anything worth keeping, otherwise delete. I don't see any reason to have the two separate articles. Peacock (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per POV fork and WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into psychotronics. I have no expertise in this area. From reading the article and several of the sources, I perceive that there is a notable topic here, but I also perceive a good bit of original research needing to be excised from the article. Furthermore, the topic can be effectively covered within the scope of the psychotronics article, which already covers much of the territory. (Question: Should The Men Who Stare at Goats be treated as related?) --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Psychotronics and expand the scope of that article to include the history of such devices (such as the research and patent by the US Government for a microwave device which can project recognizable speech into a human's head, as described in the Washington Post article) and the reported work on psychotronic weapons by the Soviets.Do not just replace this article with a redirect and leave the target article unchanged. Include also the referenced fact that many psychotic people imagine that "the government" is using such devices to beam speech into their heads, even though such beliefs were common many decades ago,such as 1908, 1884, 1819 long before there was any technology to begin to actually do it. Belief in such modern alleged practices is a notable delusional belief system. Edison (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yer comments are interesting. None of your examples show anyone thinking the government is responsible for their voices. Actually, not one of them thinks its humans at all. You have succeeded in proving that people have heard voices in the past though. Here is a good example that goes with your idea James Tilly Matthews. ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a full 90% of the sources being used to back up this claim of a long research programme do not make even a passing mention of pscyhotronics. The Washington Post article makes two mentions of psychotronics, neither in connection with things you describe. The Psychotronics article already talks at length about delusional beliefs and that was a key problem the disruptive editor in question had at both the stalking article and the psychotronics article: it wasn't in line with his POV. GDallimore (Talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's make sure the "10%:" source is included in the merged article. If there is a better and more common term, then perhaps a separate article is actually needed to discuss the weapons research described in the WP, with a mention of the popular delusion of those hearing voices that it is some government agency at work. Do you accept that the microwave research program was real, and the delusion is a common and notable one? Where should it be in Wikipedia, or should we not mention it because we don't like it? Edison (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be clearer since you appear to be missing something: the delusion aspect is now described at length in the psychotronics article thanks largely to my efforts and using the 10% of good sources. The sources for the microwave research you're referring to form part of the 90% that fails to mention psychotronics, which is the problem with including them in the psychotronics article - it is relying on a definition of psychotronics only supported by the delusional people who think they are victims of such devices rather than on definitions supported by reliable sources. In particular, it's giving credence to the conspiracy theories that any form of brain–computer interface (such as the microwave technology you're describing) can be used for mind control and therefore falls under the fringe definition of psychotronics. That article and the more general purpose directed-energy weapon already cover some of these ideas without the blatant original research required to add them to psychotronics or ascribing unsupported mind control connotations to them. GDallimore (Talk) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought to share with you, this made it to reddit.com ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reddit is in no way an indicator of notability, nor even close to a reliable source. Ansh666 02:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This mean this discussion. Agreed, it is not notable. ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion? dang! links? Ansh666 02:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here. (Where's that canvassing template?) - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add, in Ukraine many know of KGB program http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1dgnpq/an_apparent_inner_circle_of_wikipedia_editors/ ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, I took one account to SPI, but it was unrelated, as I realized was obvious later (CU still caught some other accounts and IP edits, though). Canvassing is part of Damonthesis's block, but I'll bring this up at the AN/I too, I guess. Ansh666 02:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article brings new sources even to the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control). It seems Psychotronics_(mind control) page and Psychotronic weapons should be merged with Psychotronics Topic is significant. ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)— ObjectiveConsciousness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control) closed around three years ago, so the page doesn't exist anymore. Ansh666 07:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with psychotronics. The phrase has mentioned by the militaries of two major world powers, not exactly fringe sources. It's worthy of at least a section in that article. Underpowered (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)— Underpowered (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge with psychotronics. A section of that article and the whole of the subject one are dealing with the same subject, though apparently using different material. The whole business may indeed be WP:FRINGE, but the fact that the military of both USA and USSR took an interest in the subject suggests that one article should be kept. The other is perhaps a fork, but the answer to that issue is often to merge the fork back into the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Army 1998 NSA 2004 Russian news 2012 2011 2001 I suggest others read the links, as there is obviously something wrong here. The entry for "psychotronic weapons" is meticulously sourced, and there are two editors w/names similar to "Louie" insisting it be removed- for no discernible reason at all, aside from their moot, and unproven, contentions about the submitter's beliefs. The essay linked to in "the truth" may support the position that the majority opinion is the truth, but what if the majority opinion is, perhaps counter-intuitively, woefully ignorant? Citations from the Army, NSA, Russian President, New York Times, Washington Post, etc aren't Wikipedia-worthy? 23.29.57.247 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — 23.29.57.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge into psychotronics as heavily discussed and as per Psychotronic Weapons capitalized. Aggripenae (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Collapsing off-topic discussion of "whether or not psychotronic weapons exist". Take it to Article Talk LuckyLouie (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Here is an example. This edit reverts a fact clearly described in the cited article, can anybody comment on the words in Wikipedia relative to cite? Janet Morris did not report anything? ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion regarding the proposed deletion of the Psychotronic weapons article. If you have a problem with your badly-worded misrepresentation of a source being deleted from another article, discuss it in the proper place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit reversion say "you can't demonstrate a possibility." Thomas article says "There is confirmation from US researchers that this type of study is going on. Dr. Janet Morris, coauthor of The Warrior's Edge, reportedly went to the Moscow Institute of Psychocorrelations in 1991. There she was shown a technique pioneered by the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy in which researchers electronically analyze the human mind in order to influence it." Your reverted to wording: "Thomas saying in 1998 that there was a strong belief in Russia that weapons for attacking the mind of a soldier were a possibility, although no working devices were reported." Why? ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of 'discuss it in the proper place' do you find so hard to comprehend? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OC, I'm going to save you the trouble of finding the right place: discuss it here, not in this page. Ansh666 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article, Ansh. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*eats Twix bar* discuss it here, not in this page. Ansh666 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks if this is a merge discussion for 3 pages: Psychotronics, Psychotronic weapons, Psychotronic Weapons Why not discuss here? ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a merge discussion, it's a deletion discussion. (It's been hijacked into a merge discussion, I guess, but that still doesn't make it valid to discuss here). Please take it to the individual article's talk page. Ansh666 23:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Psychotronics and Psychotronic Weapons make no mention of existence of Russian program, but a number of articles cited say this. Change vote to keep to make page just about Russian program ObjectiveConsciousness (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then just add a mention about the Russian program in the Psychotronics article if you think it has due weight. No reason to keep this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAR Speedy Delete - to end this spam-fest by Reddit-canvassed SPAs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - unless there are real sources found. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Note: I didn't actually add it. User:ObjectiveConsciousness did, but they didn't follow all the instructions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Upmerge but Purge. Much of this article is about alleged use of psychotronic weapons on people who may have been mentally disturbed. First sentence needs to be cited and details of the Soviet Cold War research provided. The focus then needs to be placed on the weapons, not alleged effects of the weapons. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify, do you want to "Keep" Psychotronic weapons or "Upmerge" it to Psychotronics? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Psychotronics. Subject appears to be related to suggested redirect target, and falls within its scope. The redirect target is not to large per WP:LIMIT, and as the subject of this AfD falls within the subject of the suggested redirect target and thus a merger and a redirect would be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Psychotronics and Psychotronic Weapons. Merge may be acceptable, but the weapons aspect should have its own article. OlavN (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major content already covered by the other article, this is just an unnecessary POV fork. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss merge on article talk page. Nominating for deletion is not a good approach to merge articles. My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artiom Damkovsky

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and the coverage is routine--sherdog, the fight promotion, etc.Mdtemp (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NMMA. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won the M-1 Global Lightweight Championship. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't win the M-1 Global Lightweight Championship. He won a fight as part of a team at M-1 Selection. Very big difference and the M-1 Selection is not a championship, it's an event. Mkdw ^talk 22:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is ~~grossly~~ misrepresented in the article as being the champion of the entire M-1 Global franchise when he's only won fights (not recognized as championships) in a few of their promotions. Even if he won several fights, M-1 is not a top tier fight organization as listed at WP:MMATIER and thus does not meet WP:NMMA. No major WP:SIGCOV outside run of the mill and routine coverage to warrant a GNG keep. Mkdw ^talk 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Musardo

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

One top tier fight (a loss) and a second tier championship is not enough to meet WP:NMMA and he lacks non-routine coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NMMA. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His record does not meet WP:NMMA and he does not have the WP:SIGCOV required outside routine and run of the mill coverage for GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Weichel

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

Has only 1 top tier MMA fight and coverage appears to be routine sports reporting so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless there's a rule set out somewhere which gives a minimum number of MMA fights needed to qualify for a page (if there isn't, then one fight sounds like enough to me)Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MMA notability criteria at WP:NMMA state that a minimum of 3 top tier fights are required to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails WP:NMMA and I didn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Winning a championship in a second tier organization does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somewhat inherent notability claim in the article. His record falls short of WP:NMMA and does not have the WP:SIGCOV, outside WP:ROUTINE and WP:Run of the mill, required to make a solid GNG claim. Mkdw ^talk 23:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis & Rose

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

Not notable - no evidence given in article of notability. Artiquities (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. As per lack of any evidence for notability. Petepetepetepete (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No reviews online that I can find from any notable person/publication. Found some bigging-up of act by venues, but they're minor ones so only to be expected. Otherwise just passing mentions. A telling comment in someone's blog is "will be performing alongside Trevor Lock (as seen on TV with Stewart Lee)" — in other words, performing with someone who's performed with someone who's famous.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Look NN to me - a few gigs at small venues, as far as I can tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy resolved and closed per WP:TWODABS bd2412 T 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooksonia

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

User:Peter coxhead and I agree that my move of the page Cooksonia to Cooksonia (plant) was not a good one due to the number of links to the first page and the number of visitors compared to the alternative Cooksonia (butterfly). Therefore please delete Cooksonia disamb. JMK (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think genus disambiguation pages are worthwhile. The plant may be the primary topic, but this page could be moved to Cooksonia (disambiguation) or Cooksonia (genus), rather than being deleted.Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Cellular Services

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

I am not sure of the notability of this article, with some of its content being pure advertising and part of it consumer complaints. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems like a violation of WP:ADVERT, in addition to having all-around poor composition. Just another Indian firm whose PR wing is trying to spread the word. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goal-based filtering approach for e-Learning Recommender Systems

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

I suspect WP:COI issues. 2 conference papers, 1 further paper, but otherwise no idnciation of significance. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: worse than that, this isn't an article at all; it looks like an abstract. Nor does the subject seem notable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New idea, doesn't seem to have been widely discussed in third party sources. The journal paper referenced has no known citations on google scholar, probably because it was only very recently published. The conference presentations don't seem to have generated much stir either, so there are no sources to establish notability of this idea. JulesH (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. Looks like an original research. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Jenkins (Singer/Songwriter)

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a bit of wikifying for the sake of it. After a cursory look online, I cannot find sources to establish notability, but the large prevalence of results about A. J. Jenkins complicates the search. I remain open to change my mind if appropriate notability is established through reliable sources. If it is kept, however, it needs to be renamed to a proper disambiguated title. For the sake of transparency: I declined the BLPPROD due to the existence of a reference, I did not "contest" a PROD. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search for reliable sources discussing this songwriter or any of the works mentioned in the article fails to find anything relevant. JulesH (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Institute

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

I'm not convinced that this organization has sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. Of the sixteen citations provided, nearly all of them are either to primary sources (i.e., the Flag Institute itself or those closely affiliated with it) or don't discuss the Flag Institute at all. There are only two sources which are independent, reliable, and actually mention the Institute, but even in those two the coverage is extremely scant. See the collapsed section for a full citation-by-citation analysis.

Extended content

Primary source: Flag Institute's own publication
Non-reliable source; irrelevant: A hobbyist site (FOTW) which in any case provides only contact details for the Flag Institute
Primary source: Flag Institute's own website
Primary source (or effectively so): Text of a speech given as an invited talk at a Flag Institute event
Primary source: Flag Institute's own constitution
Primary source: Flag Institute's own website
Non-reliable source: Private correspondence obtained from a FOI request
Non-reliable source: Private correspondence obtained from a FOI request
Non-reliable source; irrelevant: Blog post on a company's website; says nothing about the Flag Institute
Primary source: Flag Institute press release
Primary source: Same as #4 above.
Irrelevant: Government discussion paper which doesn't mention the Flag Institute
Irrelevant: UK planning law which doesn't mention the Flag Institute
Insufficient coverage: Newspaper article whose only reference to the Flag Institute is a quote by their chief executive
Insufficient coverage: House of Commons transcript in which an MP makes a passing reference to the Flag Institute's publication in answer to a question about double flagging.
Primary source: Flag Institute's own publication

Weak delete - it was only a matter of time before attention was drawn to this very poor, promotional article. As the proposer says, it is largely cited to primary sources and was written by Charles Ashburner of the Flag Institute. While on the one hand, the Flag Institute is widely mentioned in a number of news sources on a regular basis as an authority on flag-flying and protocol - for example advice was sought (but ignored) about flag protocol after the death of Maggie Thatcher. On the other hand, the article would need to be fundamentally re-written in order to become encyclopedic ...which would be a criteria for Speedy Deletion! Overall, I am erring towards the article being scrapped and encouraging userifying/resubmission if significant coverage comes to light. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following book from Google Books [[4]] cites the organisation as follows: The Flag Institute, was consulted on the process of choosing a new flag for Bosnia–Herzegovina and published an article detailing some of the issues surrounding the potential symbolism to be present on the flag.. There is several other books which cite the org. The charity does have international prominence and it's also an old and well established UK institution which passes WP:ORG but the sources need to be updated to reflect this. The article needs substantial work. Half of it could go today, without affecting quality. scope_creep (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A passing mention of the organization (such as the one in the book you linked to) is not sufficient to establish notability. Do any of the other books you allude to discuss the Flag Institute in any depth? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may certainly require more third-party citations, but is definitely not a candidate for deletion. See https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/flag-institute-spring-meeting-2011 Owain (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That citation was addressed in my nomination. It does not appear to be a fully independent source; it's the text of an invited speech at an official Flag Institute event. In any case the speaker says almost nothing about the Flag Institute; the speech is about the importance of flags and various governments' policies towards flags. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The speaker (The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP) talks about the Flag Institute in glowing terms: The first paragraph: "40 years as a respected source of help and advice. Not only to the UK Government, but to the United Nations and other organisations around the world.". Followed by "The UK is very lucky in having - in the Institute - a group of dedicated and informed people who do a great deal to make sure that that respect is given." and "In your first 40 years you have established your credentials not just in this country, but on the world stage. Over the next 40, there can be no doubt that you will continue to go from strength to strength.". Owain (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources described above, and they seem to me to be enough to keep the page. I'm also not sure I agree with the assertion that "private correspondence obtained from a FOI request" is not a reliable source; it is effectively an official statement of a governmental agency, and as such should have undergone appropriate fact checking, and is certainly verifiable (as other readers are welcome to submit their own FOI requests to the same source for confirmation). JulesH (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the following RS which say the Flag Institute is an important organization

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/3012285.stm

"The group promoting the new flag has now contacted the Flag Institute, which is one of the world's main research and documentation centres for flags."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-13337196

"The Flag Institute maintains and manages the national registry of United Kingdom flags and this flag complies with its strict UK Flag Registry criteria."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2469531/Yorkshire-flag-is-legitimised-at-last.html

"Now the Flag Institute, which regulates the flags used by counties and other local bodies, has finally agreed to register the white rose flag as an official emblem."

This combined with the sources above makes me inclined to keep this article. Transcendence (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Just as a point of information, the claim from the second article is misleading, and the third is flat-out incorrect; there is no official regulation or registration of flags in the UK. The Flag Institute itself openly acknowledges this: "There is of course no UK Flag Act, under the authority of which such flags might have been endorsed, and it therefore falls to the Flag Institute to maintain the formal record." [5] —Psychonaut (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Dea db eef 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nimble Quest

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

Non-notable, inadequate referencing. References weren't improved and are still not independent nor reliable. The previous discussion called for material to be added, which wasn't, thus the article stands as a mere stub with no notability besides number of downloads, which is not a notability claim per se. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator You are right, it was too hasty. Please close this nomination. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources found in the last nomination, which was closed barely 2 weeks ago. Its far too soon for this to be renominated, not to mention, there are sources out there, and AFD is not cleanup. Either clean it up, or let it be. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you want to restart an AFD that closed just two weeks ago, you're going to have to bring some indisputably rock-solid reasoning for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last AFD (which I created) was clear in that sources are not the problem and this meets WP:GNG. That the author(s) have been lazy in actually adding them to the article is another thing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moon-eyed people

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

The article purports to describe a legend concerning a hypothetical native American people, however is weakly sourced. There may indeed be Cherokee legend concerning the "moon-eyed people" however all we have to go on is a few odd mentions which all ultimately seem to be based on the exact same source - a mention these people in 1797. I'm sure we all agree that not every nugget of folklore is WP:N - and given the lack of substantial coverage of this story I think we are far below the threshold of notability at the moment. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC Comment - this article was recently the subject of a discussion on WP:FTN. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Far too many RSS hits on Google scholar and Google books. The fact that you can date the first time this legend was mentioned briefly in print to the year 1797, does not make all of the subsequent, more detailed mentions of the legend by Cherokee academic experts go away by implication. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Til, I'd be happy to withdraw this AFD if we could see the sources on the article significantly improved. After a google search I was unable to find better sources than the weak ones than we presently have in the article. None of the sources we currently have discuss these moon-eyed people in any significant detail. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have not google-searched very hard; entire chapters have been written about the moon-eyed people legend. It's more a case of nothing is good enough for you when you're personally determined to see a bit of somebody else's culture disappear from wikipedia-land, although anyone wishing to know about the Moon-eyed people can still find abundant sources from just about anywhere else. Once again, it seems you would rather they get their reliable info on this from elsewhere rather than from us. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til, no need to give me chapters. Just one chapter, one good source would do. As I mentioned above, the AFD was motivated by my perception of a lack of extensive, substantial coverage. If you could show just one reliable source which has covered this matter in some detail I think you will have made your point quite well. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly WP:Notable, well known, albeit controversial subject. Could be better sourced, and no doubt will be. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly seems to have a couple of reliable academic articles on it. Don't know why we would require more than that. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will probably !vote keep, but I really would like to see the actual chapters on this story. I've been asking Til for sources until I'm blue in the face, and this is the first time he has said there are whole chapters written about this group. And Peregrine, what are the academic articles you mention? I've spent a lot of time looking for sources and haven't found those. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I second that. Peregrine981, could you kindly point myself and Dougweller to the single most reliable academic source pertaining to this legend. All it takes is one good source, at the moment we have a few very poor sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The articles already included, plus below seem to be more than sufficient to establish notability. Do you consider them unreliable? Peregrine981 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Not even worth considering for deletion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough, but I wouldn't mind seeing better sourcing as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established from published sources. This is a recorded remnant of oral history of an early unidentified tribe. Unfortunately subsequent writers have attached wild theories to this group, so the article will have to be monitored to keep out the fringe theorists, much in the way Walam Olum has to be monitored. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Keep: There is weirder and more fringe stuff on wiki than this, but the sourcing is problematic for linking the Welsh legend of Madoc to the Cherokee. Til is not helping by claiming that there is a lot of material without giving so much as one proper bibliographic citation. So long as WP:SYNTH is avoided, the article itself can stay. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are sourcing problems with the article they should be fixed, but there is no reason the entire article needs deleting. JulesH (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI Mooney, James (1902). Myths of the Cherokee. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. pp. 22–3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) at Internet Archive 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IN 1902, the US Government was still grave-robbing. All that's repeated there is the 1797 account. (And gee no one is arguing that the reference to a legend about "slant-eyed ppeople" means that Chinese got there first, either... just saying...) Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references presented thus far are sufficient to establish the notability (WP:GNG) of this element of Cherokee folklore. However, I also agree with some previous comments that the article should (if possible) be supplemented with contemporary scholarly analyses of this folklore motif. Via a bit of Google searching, I came across a paper with the promising title "Of Trembling Gods and Moon-Eyed People: Ruminations on the Limits of Ethnography" on Project MUSE, but alas, it is behind a paywall, so I cannot say if it is relevant or not. For anyone searching for additional sources, I'll also note that academic papers on this subject may use the original designation in the Cherokee language to refer to the "moon-eyed people" instead of the popularized English translation. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable piece of either folklore or history depending on your point of view. Generally, I would say that most things regarded as notable enough for historical markers are nearly always suitable article subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that it is notable (per above), but look out for better sources and guard from fringe theorists and vandals. Ansh666 03:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic certainly look to be notable given the sources that are provided. Weak sourcing is not a reason to delete, we have to look at the topic. This topic clears the requirement to keep based on the number of independent sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I move to close the discussion there being a clear consensus for keep 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't act on 'moves to close' but as there are no !Delete votes so far I expect someone is likely to close this early. Dougweller (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close early. The article does not appear weakly sourced, and I believe notability has been established. Everyking (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I agree that sourcing could be better, article's subject seems to meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 01:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll pile on... discussed in scholarly works like the Encyclopedia of American Indian History.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is too vague. It could apply to anyone who has the moon in their eyes or people with eyes that look like the moon. Big and wide. Prince of Peas (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Prince of Peas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - notability has been established.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This was a tough close. Numbers-wise it is fairly even but the deletion arguments are stronger and more policy based. J04n(talk page) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in Western Australia

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

per WP:directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sats 11:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ACT one survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, verifiable information, past consensus to keep for good reason. Would rather take these to featured lists than force people to use another website for no good reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the result of the associated AfD was "Move to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Australia subpages pending consensus." Where was the subsequent consensus? As for forcing "people to use another website for no good reason", that's a tad circular, as it's from that website that these lists are sourced, and while that website is updated monthly, this article isn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It flat out contravenes the WP:NOTDIR policy, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) --AussieLegend (✉) 23:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in Tasmania

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

per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sats 11:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ACT one survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It flat out contravenes the WP:NOTDIR policy, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) --AussieLegend (✉) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in South Australia

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

per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sats 11:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ACT one survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It flat out contravenes the WP:NOTDIR policy, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) --AussieLegend (✉) 23:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in Queensland

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

per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sats 11:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ACT one survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, as per AussieLegend's suggestion. Even if they aren't that out-of-date it seems the most logical way forward. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It flat out contravenes the WP:NOTDIR policy, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no reason whatsoever for us listing ZIP codes. I sure hope we don't list area codes, but I'm almost afraid to look. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia only has Telephone numbers in Australia but the US has Category:Lists of United States area codes - Be afraid, be very afraid. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in the Northern Territory

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

per WP:Directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sats 11:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ACT one survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It flat out contravenes the WP:NOTDIR policy, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) --AussieLegend (✉) 23:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in New South Wales

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

per WP:Directory - see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sats 11:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ACT one survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed this AfD but....Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It flat out contravenes the WP:NOTDIR policy, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory

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

Wp:directory- see comments on Victoria lis Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Consensus in 2007 was to move all of these lists to project space, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory. Did that never happen? --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

previous AfDs gave weak or no reasons for keep and consensus can change. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I agree with the arguments put by the delete group already put forward, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) --AussieLegend (✉) 23:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia)

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

per WP:Directory. Australia Post maintains a correct list of postcodes. We have an incorrect list of no particular use with no added information and of no benefit to our readership, and we are providing possible incorrect info to those who come here thinking we are a directory. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sats 11:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ACT one survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Postcodes in Australia#External links, as suggested above. These lists were quite useful years ago when they were full of redlinks, but now that they're for the most part filled in there's nothing on these pages that the Australia Post tool doesn't do better. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It flat out contravenes the WP:NOTDIR policy, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Clearly, the concept of a postcode is notable, as is each country's implementation of the idea. However, individual postcodes are not notable: if they are referred to at all, it is as a convenient name for a small geographical area (e.g., lazy sports writers writing "SW18" because they've already said "Wimbledon" a hundred times in their article), and the discussion is not about the code itself. WP:CSC allows lists where all entries are non-notable but these ones are just directories so fall foul of WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is also not a mirror of Australia Post's website or anyone else's. I think it is best not to redirect as that increases the likelihood of the page being recreated and also provides a landing spot for search engine users. If we don't look like we have a full list of Australian postcodes in the encyclopaedia, people searching for that topic will end up at sites that actually do have one, instead of here. Dricherby (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does Australia Post actually have a LIST of postcodes anywhere? A search tool is not quite the same. --99of9 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The telephone books that are delivered to every property each year contain a list of postcodes. Full postcode data is available from the Australia Post website (here - there are 16,549 lines). A quick check of the articles showed up several inaccuracies. You're correct, a search tool is not quite the same, it's much better. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so that's only free for non-commercial use. In which case maybe we can send our cc-by-sa lists to wikidata or similar. Of course a community-maintained list will have inaccuracies or be out of date, but a user can sometimes live with that, and the freedom of use would be important for many types of use (e.g. putting names on geospatial census data indexed by postcode - something I'm trying to do for demographic maps on Commons right now). That's not something one can get with a search tool as far as I know, without spamming the query system. --99of9 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the source of this article is only free for non-commercial use and we're licensing it more broadly than that, aren't we in WP:COPYVIO? Dricherby (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into how we got our list, so you could be right, but in principle it may have come from an earlier distribution with different terms, or was perhaps even crowd sourced. --99of9 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~If we were updating the existing article using the Australia Post source, then yes, it would be a copyvio, but we can't do that. As for innacuracies,~~ I tried regenerating the list in my userspace and found the existing list, which has 1,718 postcodes, to be missing 1,475 entries - the list is less than 54% complete and that's a lot of innacuracies to live with. Using the list for something like "putting names on geospatial census data indexed by postcode" is really pointless. Australian census data isn't based on postcodes. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has its own Census Collection Districts that often cross postcodes and these CCDs apparently only have limited availability. Available maps are low resolution and only show suburb boundaries for comparison. At anything larger, with the exception of LGA data there's a fair bit of guess work involved. For a rough idea of what I mean, go to this link and where it says "Enter a location", type in "Raymond Terrace", select "Gazetted Locality (GL)" from the dropdown list and click "GO". You'll note That the entire north west part of Raymond Terrace is missing, although the ABS does check the population along the shoreline of Grahamstown Dam, which is fairly easy because there are no people there. This is one of the good ones. Now try typing "2324" (the postcode) and click "GO" again to see the area covered by the postcode. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "these CCDs apparently only have limited availability"? Are you saying that the data in the census data-packs that is tabulated by POA does not match with the boundaries the Post office uses, or that it's somehow wrong/guessed? I clicked on 2324, is your point that it's an unusual shape, or it doesn't match the post office search tool (it seems to roughly match the towns at least)? The boundary maps I'm using are also in the data packs, and are easily high enough resolution for my needs. For sake of discussion, I'm talking about putting location names on maps like this, but perhaps coarse-grained by POA instead of SLA. --99of9 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the census data for a suburb often doesn't match the gazetted suburb, as can be seen from the fact that a large portion of Raymond Terrace is missing from the Raymond Terrace data. On the other hand, Swan Bay covers almost all of Swan Bay, but includes much of Ferodale, Medowie and Oyster Cove as well. For what you are doing, the Census Data Packs seem to be adequate, but these postcode lists are woefully inadequate for nearly everything. If you want to use postcodes, you're better off downloading the complete list from Australia Post for reference. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

No, it's not much use at all. As I've indicated above, this article is missing more than 46% of the locations in Victoria, although admittedly some of these are postcodes within one location. At least some of the redlinks in the article are not valid locations, they're non-notable housing estates or other subdivisions within existing suburbs that already have articles. Some like Appin Park don't appear on the updated list. I don't follow your logic regarding WP:NOTDIR, which says nothing about fundamental resources offering more information that what we have here. WP:NOTDIR says that Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is a map between locality names and postcode values, and is therefore a directory, at least according to the definition in Directory (databases). "In software engineering, a directory is a map between names and values. It allows the lookup of values given a name, similar to a dictionary." That seems to apply here, since you've cited WP:NOTPAPER, which itself says "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". --AussieLegend (✉) 22:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with DGG about the potential usefulness of these lists for article creation. I didn't get an answer to the question I asked earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory (3rd nomination) so I will ask here: In 2007, the consensus was to move these lists to project space. Why wasn't that done? Why not do it now? --01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, and I doubt anyone knew that was the case when the AfDs were started. Have you asked Fishhead64, the admin who closed the discussions? The reason not to do it now is that moving the articles serves no purpose. The articles fail WP:NOTDIR and in their woefully inaccurate state, which isn't likely to be fixed, they serve no useful purpose, as I've explained above. The arguments for keeping/moving them at the 2007 AfD, that thousands of articles link to them and that Australia Post doesn't provide a list of all postcodes do not exist any more. Other arguments, such that they provide a resource for spelling are specious. There are plenty of official sources that provide this information, notably Geoscience Australia, that provide this information in an up to date form. We shouldn't be using half-completed, 6 year old articles for references. In fact we're not supposed to. We're supposed to use secondary sources, which Wikipedia isn't. By keeping these articles we are deceiving our readers into thinking we have complete lists. Clearly we don't. There have been very few updates in the past 6 years and most of the changes were minor. The trend is likely to continue. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rdirect to Postcodes in Australia#External links The list is incomplete but might lead a reader to believe it is complete, doesn't meet WP:NOTDIR, AusPost does it better and are the original source.FlatOut 11:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Buffalo State Bengals football team

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412 T 00:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete. This a non-notable season for a minor college football program. The WP:CFB precedents are clear: in the absence of meaningful coverage (i.e. not routine, not trivial) in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG, single CFB seasons for minor programs do not get anything like an "automatic pass." Frankly, it's not supposed to be automatic for Division I FBS programs, either. We do make exceptions for non-notable seasons when they are combined with other seasons by decade, coaching tenure or some other logical and coherent grouping. If the article creator wants to have this article userfied so that he can work on expanding to a full decade of seasons (e.g. 2000-09), I would support that in keeping with established WP:CFB precedent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but which target? An article for the conference season, or all seasons for one school? But if no one is willing to keep those up then Delete would be the choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse. That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances. I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of Buffalo State Bengals football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main Buffalo State Bengals football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What rush? What need for dialogue? It was, as I recall, suggested to create a broader, more acceptable article. You've had more than enough time since the first Afd to do so. It's hardly Edge3's fault that you haven't, nor is it his responsibility to do it for you. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1. A 5-5 season for a Division III team? Seriously? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can see several reasons in favor of deletion of the article, but the fact that they had a 5-5 record is not one of them. Would we keep it if they had a 10-0 season? Or 9-1? Or 8-2? Kind of fits the Arbitrary Inclusion argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Are you kidding? A 10-0 season has a lot more chance of attracting press notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No I'm not kidding. Certainly a 10-0 season has a lot more chance of attracting press notice. but it would be the press notice that would gain the notability, not necessarily a 10-0 season. Or a 9-1. Or 8-2. A team can be 0-11 and get press notice too, such as my (beloved) 1988 Kansas State Wildcats football team. It's not the record that matters, it's the coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of the related individual Buffalo State Bengals football season articles have now been deleted -- other than this one. By a quirk of individual !voting/consensus determination for each of these team season articles, this AfD remains open while the others have been deleted; there are now no viable articles to be merged with this one. As I said above, however, as an alternative to deleting this article, I would support userfying it and the others in order to give the article creator the opportunity to create a season-decade article or other mutlti-season list per WP:CFBSEASON. The ball is now in the article creator's court to propose an alternative. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with most of what you said, Dirtlawyer1. However, nobody owns the article (WP:OWN), including the article creator, so there is no obligation for him to propose an alternative. Edge3 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, Edge, there is no ownership and no obligation, but there is an opportunity per WP:CFBSEASON for the article creator or anyone else who wants to pick up the ball and run with it (if you'll pardon the metaphor). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I hope someone is enthusiastic enough to propose a good merger possibility. I'd do it but I've got my hands full with NAIA season articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Transport for London Forum

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

As with the prod, "It is an online message board with no coverage in other sources". A search found no better sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2013 (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/2013 April 30. Snotbot t • c » 11:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete TfL is notable, a self-promoting forum riding on the same name is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- TfL is certainly notable, but an e-mail list discussing it is unlikely to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. At best this would be a line in the TfL article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability. If the site were actually affiliated with TfL, then it would likely be worth a brief mention in the article about TfL. As it stands, though, it utterly fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete. Despite its aspirations, it isn't currently a notable website due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources. It might be in the future, but per WP:CRYSTAL we don't include articles on that basis. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~WP:NOTFORUM~~, WP:CRYSTAL & above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTFORUM is not relevant here - that's the guideline about articles not being for discussion about the topic and talk pages not being a forum for general discussion. It is perfectly acceptable to have articles about forums if they are notable (see Category:Internet forums), although this one is not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have absolutely no idea why I put that .... Clearly a dumb moment! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like they said above, TfL is notable, but this forum is not. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 Witches

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

As with the prod, "spam from Voidz. non notable web series, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of non mentions, passing mentions, pr and non reliable sources" and prod2, This is just WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article. The mention in the NYT is a brief mention and none of the other sources are really the type that are usable as RS. None of the awards seem to be of the type that would extend notability either. Userfication is an option if anyone wants to do it, but I think that this is just too soon for an article." [6]. Prod removed without improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the second PRODer. I really can't add much more to this than I did with the case I made for the PROD. All I can say about the PROD rationale is that popularity does not equate to notability. It makes it more likely it'd gain in-depth coverage, but it doesn't guarantee notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a millimeter away from being speedy deletable as non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of any coverage from reliable sources. There do seem to be a lot of search results about this topic, though, so I would not have problem with recreating the article if proper coverage emerges. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This piece from The New York Times mentioning 13 Witches is indicative of possible future coverage, but here, its mention there is analogous with WP:GNG's "significant coverage" trivial example of the band Three Blind Mice. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "too soon." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Drops

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

spam from Voidz. non notable thing, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. the blog referenced is not a reliable sources. Not enough to support this original research. Prod removed without improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article was a setup for this external link spam: SPAM LINK PeterWesco (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What promotional you found with 'DJ Drops'? What you kids are discussing here is ridiculous. Please, go and ask any Dj about what Dj drops are and enlighten yourselves! (lol) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.210.211.172 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed manufacturing

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The is a work of synthesis not directly supported by the sourcing. The sourcing supports associated aspects and they are bought together in this work. Created by a SPA who's purpose appears to be to introduce research by the team behind RecycleBot into Wikipedia, in this case refs 7 and 10. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I entirely understand the justification for deleting the article. You claim that it is an original synthesis (i.e. it "combine[s] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", to quote the wording on WP:NOR), but you do not specify what claim is made by the article that is not justified by its source, nor why this claim could not simply be removed. I also fail to understand the relevance of the purpose of the page's creator in creating the article. Is there a reason the links should not be included in the article? The line between a SPA and an editor contributing their knowledge on a single topic is a fine one; how have you determined which this case is? JulesH (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the ten references used is about distributed manufacturing, the below mentioned book. The other nine are used to verify things not directly related to distributed manufacturin. The bringing together these 9 unrelated topics into an article about something those references are not about is where it synthesis is. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Distributed manufacturing is a highly notable topic, with '"Distributed manufacturing" -wikipedia' generating over 6,300 hits in GScholar and and over 7,600 results in GBooks. There are entire books devoted to the topic, such as Distributed Manufacturing: Paradigm, Concepts, Solutions and Examples, and survey articles, such as Leitão, Paulo. "Agent-based distributed manufacturing control: A state-of-the-art survey." Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 22, no. 7 (2009): 979-991.. General notability guidelines, per WP:GNG are more than satisfied. Problems with synthesis or a non-neutral point of view are generally surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, especially in a short article like this. Even if the article is deemed hopeless and WP:TNT applies, the notability of the topic means we should stubify, not delete. A highly notable topic, along with either surmountable problems, or at worst, stubification, suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark above. I saw the RecycleBot AfD, and while this is a dumping ground for their work now that the other articles are gone, it is (unfortunately, I must say) a notable enough topic to keep. Ansh666 03:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- note: possibly Redirect to one of the pages in the first sentence (Craft production or Cottage industry) for now? Ansh666 09:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD is not a "needs improvement tag, yet it appears that is the issue here. This topic is trivially cited in the press and research papers. It appears to be an emerging field that I suspect will only grow more NOTE as time goes on. Duff, perhaps you can explain (a) why you think this is SYN, and (b) why you believe the proper solution is to delete and not fix? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking. Distributed manufacturing is a well established concept in engineering and manufacturing circles, with plenty of citeable high quality sources available. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mascot#Corporate mascots . The history will remain in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 01:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising character

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

This is just an agglomeration of two ordinary English words; it is not a distinct subject in itself, despite the multitude of cruft-laden lists that support it. Not every list article needs a parent on the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Long-term stub that's just a dicdef and a couple of examples. It would certainly be possible to write a good article on this topic but this is not that article and there's nothing to preserve in the history: perhaps the resulting redlinks will encourage somebody. Dricherby (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, a good article just needs to be written. A book is cited which seems to be entirely on the subject, so sources are not lacking. Borock (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Mascot#Corporate mascots. Also, merge the associated lists Chris/Thumperward points out in the nom statement to List of mascots. No need to have two separate articles/lists on the same thing. Ansh666 03:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Dricherby: there's definitely an article to be written here but this isn't the start of one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Mascot#Corporate mascots Jim.henderson (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NUST Journal of Engineering Sciences

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

No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases (GS aims to cover everything and is not selective). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Citations to (Gscholar) , and library holdings of (Worldcat), both unimpressive, almost no history. Can a journal have a case of NOTYET? Ray^Talk 14:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how a five-year-old academic journal with no mentions in mainstream or academic media even passes WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Ray, if there isn't precedent, let's set it: Journal NOTYET. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ray. – Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S S M Ashramam

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

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

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

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

Could not find a reliable source talking about subject. Fails Notability, possible WP:ARTSPAM Evano1van (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly a non-notable topic. No third-party sources to establish notability. smtchahal^(talk) 12:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notable organization it is clearly notable topic as this ashram is notable one concern area. there is also third party sources to establish the same. one may find it,s relevancy through web,images, maps and other sources.so it is suggested not to be deleted as there is neither dispute nor other claims from any body. (112.79.41.116 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)) — 112.79.41.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
objection for deletion SSM Ashramam is a short form to the Sri Surya Savarnika manavu Ashramam which is non profit registered Hindu religious Society.There are reliable sources and among one of them is - http://ssmasramam.blogspot.in) and also https://maps.google.co.in/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=S%20S%20M%20Ashramam (Raraja123 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A link on Google maps and to the organization's own blog do not establish notability. The nature of the objections on the part of the creator, in addition to the tone of the article, reek of WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep.It is about an Ashram which is notable one in a particular State.As it is about an Hindu organization some of the non Hindu users may ask for deletion, which is highly objectionable.More ever,as the organization activities are non commercial,question of advertise does not arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manavu (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — Manavu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Before claiming the article to be notable, you must know what "notability" exactly means. Here at Wikipedia, a topic is not notable unless it has significant coverage in reliable, third party sources (and that is just one of the conditions of notability; see WP:GNG for all of them). The problem with this article is that the sources provided are primary and can by no means be considered to be reliable sources, as I suggested above. smtchahal^(talk) 11:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not correct to say that this Article having primary sources only. It is also having third party sources.For example See (http://www.mojostreet.com/place/ReligiousSpiritual-Centers/S-S-M-Ashramam-India-Khammam-517327 ),so keep it. (Manavu (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
  - Having a blog or being listed in a directory does not count as third party sources. A reliable third party source would be (for example) a newspaper article about the subject. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and like all encyclopedias, the vast majority of potential subjects do not meet inclusion criteria. It's nothing personal, please understand that. I have a great deal of respect for the Hindu religion and its adherents, so despite your stated belief to the contrary, I would never, ever suggest deletion on that basis. In fact, I did my own search in case you just misunderstood the idea behind third party sources, but still found nothing which would even suggest that the Ashram may be notable. HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any third-party sources at all, and even those arguing for Keep could only cite the subject's blog, a Google Maps entry, and an online directory listing. Very clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines. HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Even A Google map entry also verified by the public or users.The Google won't publish entries unless it is reliable. More ever Search engine test also reveals the notability of the Article. (Raraja123 (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Raraja123 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
- There are many Google map entries and they are all generally made by the public and can be edited by anyone. As you mentioned, the entries are "verified" by the public and the users, not by Google officials themselves. I've myself seen fake Google map entries and they never get deleted. However, you'd be mistaken to compare them to Wikipedia articles, where reliable sources must be provided if the content is to be kept, unlike those map entries. Again, Google map entries (or any entries of the sort) cannot be considered to be reliable sources. Sources like newspaper publications (as HillbillyGoat mentioned), books written by remarkable people, etc. are some examples of what (at Wikipedia) are considered to be reliable sources.
- My YouTube videos are included in (relevant) Google searches. But does that make them reliable sources? No. YouTube videos are, in most cases, not considered to be reliable sources and hence are usually avoided. Tons of webpages on the internet can be reached using Google searches, but not all of is it surely what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources". Please take your time to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before making frivolous appeals to keep the article without good reasons. These discussions on Wikipedia are absolutely based on the Wikipedia guidelines and decisions are also taken in accordance with the same. smtchahal^(talk) 13:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You only get to !vote once Raraja123. Mkdw ^talk 07:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Smtchahal notes, I see there no reliable coverage, only WP:SELFPUB. Also worth noting that of the four keeps above, two are from the same user, and the other two are from users with very few contributions and so who may be unfamiliar with WP:GNG etc. —me_and 19:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 07:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the editor who relisted. I have noted that Raraja123 !voted twice and was last active one year ago regarding this same subject and may have been canvassed here. Also, that there are two other SPA editors who have only edited this AFD and the article. Mkdw ^talk 07:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with reservations. There is a clear lack of English-language sources. However, looking only for English-language sources introduces a clear WP:Systematic_bias to the encyclopaedia: as a thought experiment, consider how much of the en.wikipedia.org would be wiped out if we insisted on sources in Hindi. I suppose I'm mostly saying this to encourage editors to consider that a topic might be notable, even without English-language sources; I lack the skills to find such sources myself. In this case, the lack of any linked articles on other-language Wikipedias suggests that there aren't sources in other langauges, either (or maybe there's a huge article on hi.wikipedia.org but nobody thought to link it). Dricherby (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no hard and fast rule to decide the eligibility of the articles to be published in Encyclopedia. Wiki pedia instructions are mere guide lines to the users.I found some such guide lines in favour of this Article also, i.e using Blog pages as reliable sources, subject to condition that Article should not be about a living person. Admittedly this Article about A registered Hindu religious Society which is a Non commercial one. Daily so many blog readers and other persons verifies this organization whereabouts through various reliable sources including Blogs.. For Example see this link (https://plus.google.com/102820381674917370132) &(http://www.mojostreet.com/explore/Enkoor/Andhra-Pradesh).(Raraja123 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
It's true that there are no hard and fast rules. Nonetheless there are policies and guidelines that shouldn't be ignored without good reason. These include WP:GNG, which states that an article must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

http://ssmasramam.blogspot.in/ doesn't count, since it's not independent. Google Maps doesn't count, since it's not reliable. Google Plus isn't reliable per WP:SPS, and the link you've provided doesn't give significant coverage anyway. http://www.mojostreet.com/explore/Enkoor/Andhra-Pradesh also does not count as significant coverage.

Blog pages can be reliable resources, but per WP:SPS, "self-published media, such as … personal or group blogs … are largely not acceptable as sources." I don't see any of the exceptions listed there applying here. —me_and 20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As youme agreed, Blog pages can be reliable sources,the only exception is it is not about a living person biography. Here is another blog which is not a personal one,and having a significant coverage regard to said Ashram. (http://ssmanavu.blogspot.in/) (Raraja123 (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The types of blog that are acceptable are things like professional journalists' blogs on their employers' websites, which are essentially a digital version of a newspaper column, or significant blogs that are themselves notable (and as a guide, it's hard for a blog to become notable without being "famous" and having tens or hundreds of thousands of readers, though notability is not based on the number of readers). Personal blogs are only rarely acceptable and, if they are, probably only as a source for some minor detail.

We are trying to establish WP:NOTABILITY – please follow the link to find out about what that means. For notability, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and, if we cannot establish notability, then there cannot be an article. It's almost impossible to demonstrate notability using blogs so pointing out more and more blog articles almost certainly won't make a difference: we need something in the mainstream media, in a book or something like that. Dricherby (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. This article can be rewritten if sources are found. Transcendence (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of grunge supergroups

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

With prior discussions in 2007 and 2008, this was turned into a redirect in October 2012. It was nominated at RfD, where consensus was to revert to an article and give it a go here at AfD to debate its merit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced WP:OR. Several of these bands aren't even identified as grunge in their own articles. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Supergroup" as the term is generally understood was never really applicable to grunge, as part of its nature was the mixing and matching of personnel esp in the early years, some of those were just one-offs or jokey "credit-to" things like Alice Mudgarden. IMO the only legit one on the list is Mad Season, and one entry doesn't a list make. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, irrelevant article. If there is an article about a list of grunge supergroups then there should be a list of nu metal supergroups article and a list of alternative rock supergroups article etc. A "list of grunge bands" article would be much more appropriate. I call the big one bitey (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc and BDD. Miniapolis 13:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 06:10, 30 April 2013 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Omar Borkan AL Gala (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Essay, original research, no independent sources) czar · · 06:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Borkan AL Gala

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

WP:BLP1E Tentinator 05:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#2: nom was banned for sockpuppet disruption relating to this article, and no one else has recommended deletion. (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Webber Academy

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

Since the day of its creation this article has been flagged for being written like an advertisement. The page is acting as a propaganda tool to promote the institution's self interest and not supply reliable information on the institution itself. The article's contents are not sourced and are rather irrelevant, especially before recent edits. The institution the page is based around is not an important part of the city or something frequently searched for and thereby is unworthy of having a Wikipedia article based upon it. Lastly, this article contains literally three lines of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free6om (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Free6om (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. czar · · 06:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I would ask that some adm please ~~either properly format this AfD discussion or~~ just speedily close this, as being promotional really isn't a reason for an Afd and the article isn't. Also, schools are assumed to be notable. I just really don't see what is going on here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all schools are assumed notable (that would be high schools, and even that is contested), and the OP is essentially saying WP:PROMOTION and WP:N without the fancy acronyms. It was a good faith attempt to bring the article to AfD (which can be complicated for a newcomer), so I completed it to help out—no need for speedy close. czar · · 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is still plausible, but looking at the article's edit history, perhaps I spoke too soon on the faith (though possibly its just the user's misunderstanding of how NPOV on WP works). I'm awaiting results at SPI. czar · · 07:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD was incomplete as posted. I've filed the other steps on the author's behalf in good faith that they wanted this article to come to AfD, and not of my own wanting. czar · · 06:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with the Canadian school system so I can't say anything about notability. However, the current article is, in my opinion, not at all promotional: it's just a matter-of-fact list of facilities. Dricherby (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep I too know nothing about whether the school is notable, and it may indeed be deletable on those or other grounds. But my vote here is keep since the nom has thoroughly and completely failed to make their case that the article is promotional or written like an advertisement. It simply isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's now a standard stub article about a senior school and therefore assumed to be notable. The article has had an interesting history, including many attempts by the nominator to add a link to a personal website with commentary on the school, but it's now a neutral stub capable of sensible expansion. PamD 15:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been edited multiple times by myself and others to keep it in such a non-promotional manner. The article will be reset to its original format by its creator if left. Free6om (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it can be edit protected. AfD is for deletion, not resolution of content disputes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Hecht

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

Request per subject, self-assertion of non-notability. VRTS ticket # 2013042910008353 L Faraone 02:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a modest contrast to the posturing mediocrities who so often appear in these threads. Wikipedia policy allows deletion at the request of the subject if notability is borderline. There is a slight difficulty here because the subject's citation record is rather good, nearly 300 GS cites for his major book. But by stretching hard he might just be pushed into the borderline category. ~~So Delete at subject's request.~~ Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hearhear! Agree with Xx (and Ray below) -- I'd probably be arguing for Keep were it not for the request, but I think that an argument can be made for delete so with the OTS, I vote Delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's notable, with several reviews for After Life and At Home on the Streets.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] If he's an important anthropologist, there's public interest in having a Wikipedia page that explains his work and ideas. If he wants it deleted, maybe this could be converted into articles on his books? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the request from the subject is confirmed, the article should be deleted. --BozMo talk 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the subject. If there were a clearer case for notability, it might be a different story. Note: I was the admin who pointed the subject to OTRS, following a redlinked AFD template on the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the subject's request. I agree completely with the spirit of Xxan's comment above - otherwise, I would think the subject passes WP:AUTHOR for notability given the references provided in Colapeninsula's comment above, but a courtesy deletion is not entirely out of bounds here. Having a Wikipedia article to watch (but not edit) can be an unwanted source of stress to an academic's life, and the subject's request for deletion is completely reasonable. Ray^Talk 15:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my default vote when someone of low or unclear notability requests deletion of their own bio. Wikipedia shouldn't cause article subjects undue grief. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually very hawkish about letting article subjects determine their own inclusion-worthiness on either the Keep or Delete side of things. This, however, seems a pretty cut-and-dried GNG failure. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep winner of one of the major prizes in the field. There's little point in having separate articles for the books, when we can have a single article that covers them all. Removing people who feel modest about their accomplishments leaves WP an encyclopedia of the ones who do not feel modest, which is a ridiculous POV bias. We'd do better by deleting the articles on anyone who makes a concerted argument themselves to show why they ought to be included,. We have very adequate ways to protect articles when problems arise, and several ways for a person to update an article and tell us of problems. We owe them the courtesy to keep the article accurate. Anyone who write books under their own name can expect a certain amount of public notice. (I have a very few times supported deletions in cases like this where any article would be inherently unfair--I will check the otrs ticket, which I cannot do from my present location. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what DGG argued, WorldCat shows that his books are widely held: Minor omissions 742, At home in the street 602, After life 241, etc., which are fairly impressive figures for academic texts and pass on WP:PROF #1. The request muddles this a little, but I think David's argument of available tools plus vigilance stand to resolve any problems. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Per DGG (major prize winner), Agricola44 (WorldCat shows that his books are widely held), Colapeninsula (his books are widely reviewed) and Xxanthippe (his books are widely cited), he meets WP:AUTHOR. The fact that he is a "modest contrast to the posturing mediocrities who so often appear in these threads" is indeed admirable, but not, in my view, grounds for deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Colapeninsula already listed a couple of mainstream reviews (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly) along with half a dozen academic reviews of his novel After Life, but it was also reviewed in the LA Times [15]. With what appear to be clear passes of both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, I don't think this is the sort of borderline case for which we should go with the subject's wishes for modesty. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep per WP:NAUTHOR #1, at the very least. Per Wikipedia standards, Hecht's notability isn't marginal but clearly within Keep. I do want Wikipedia to show sensitivity to Mr. Hecht's privacy if that's his concern, maybe the few entries in the article's history that have biographical information that Hecht himself appears to have added could be revdel'd or even oversighted. Everything currently in the article is easily independently verifiable, and in fact appears on Hecht's own website. Maybe whoever established contact with Hecht over the OTRS ticket could ask him exactly what the issue is... it does not seem the current article content would be anything to feel a privacy infringement over. Zad68 01:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tough situation here, I'm basing my decision on the fact that his writing is scholarly and not "pop". Yes his writings have achieved his notability but that was not his intention. Let's give the gentleman a break. If this is kept, at the very least it should be page-protected. J04n(talk page) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand that you're saying that, even though his books show he's notable, the article should be deleted because it was not his goal to become notable? Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I don't understand this argument either. Hecht is actively involved in promoting his own works at his commercial website http://www.tobiashecht.com, and a WHOIS lookup shows that the site is indeed controlled by Hecht, which would argue against the idea that Hecht is entirely uninterested in publicity. The Wikipedia article does not contain anything that Hecht is not himself hosting on his own commercial site, except maybe where he got his Ph.D. If there's a history of defamatory information being added to the Wikipedia article then absolutely it should be page-protected, but a quick look at the article history doesn't show that to be a problem right now. Zad68 15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be significant information and on this basis I strike my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedy/snowball deletion, not notable, self-promotion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Astoria

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

Non-notable novel by non-notable author. —teb728 t c 02:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious self-promotion; there is no reason to suspect hidden notability. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above arguments. I too was unable to find anything that would show that this book would pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that it meets inclusion guidelines. polarscribe (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, just an inch from tagging it as CSD G11. Dea db eef 04:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - couldn't find anything satisfactory to sufficiently pass WP:NBOOKS. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kethi Kilonzo

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

The given sources, I feel, are not enough to establish the topic's notability. I also think that just because of the fact that a person gave an "outstanding performance" on something does not make it appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on him/her. smtchahal^(talk) 06:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current references is the article include at least two in-depth articles substantially about the subject from apparently reliable sources (the Sunday Nation and The Standard (Kenya)). As both have clearly been occasioned by the subject's participation in a recent high-profile political court case, there may be some BLP1E issues - but at least one of the articles seems to state that the subject has also taken part in some previous high-profile cases. If these can be further substantiated from reliable sources, then the BLP1E issues would no longer apply and the article should then be kept. PWilkinson (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E.A.S. (Emanuel Scheek)

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

I deleted an earlier more promotional version of this; though not my subject, I do not see what is asserted that shows notability. The recordings seem all still to be released. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary activity seems to be in performing commercial jingles and the like. It's a bit tough to work out where the bar of notability sits with that as it's not exactly the sort of thing that gets you the cover of Rolling Stone, but based on the article and an examination of the references he doesn't appear to pass our music guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't fit the Notability guidelines for music. It does seem to be self-promotional. Point 10 of the guideline, that "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" might be qualified by this article, except "Rekemo" isn't notable. Who added the article? Reading it seems like E.A.S wrote it himself. the1akshay (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Dewayne Johns jr

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

Appears to be an undrafted player who played in the NBA Development League and in the USBL. Appears to fail all three points of WP:NHOOPS. No other indication of notability. PROD declined without explanation by an IP that is likely the article creator. Safiel (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NHOOPS. Dea db eef 04:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was undrafted and his highest level of play was in the United States Basketball League, this in insufficient for WP:NHOOPS. J04n(talk page) 13:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World peace flame

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

Neither the article itself nor anything else that I can find gives any evidence that this subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

The references in the "references" section are as follows. (1) A link to www.worldpeaceflame.org, which is clearly not an independent source. (2) A dead link. (3) A report about a man who committed suicide after contact with a cult called "the Life Foundation". The article is not substantially about the "World peace flame". It does briefly mention a flame, not referred to as "the World peace flame", which it said had been burning for 28 years at the time of the article (19 November 2006) meaning that the flame in question had been burning since 1978, whereas the article says that the World peace flame has been burning since July 1999. It is therefore unclear that it is the same flame, but even if it is, the report does not constitute substantial coverage.

In addition to those references listed in the "references" section, there are ten inline external links. These are all about the organisation behind the flame, not the flame itself: only two of them even mention the flame, and those two don't give it substantial coverage. Three of them are links to Wikipedia pages.

(Note: A PROD was removed without any explanation by an IP editor all of whose recent edits have been on the topic of the organisation responsible for this "flame".) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nice concept, but no evidence of notability. Borock (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also couldn't find notability. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 19:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was redirect to Jane by Design#Recurring cast . J04n(talk page) 11:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Dechart

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

Self-promotional page without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, created by a user named Bryan Dechart. The references are substanially non-reliable (e.g. Wikia, IMDb) or non-independent (e.g. a page on the web site for a film he acted in, a page which describes its contents as "From the Press Release") or both. What is more, none of them gives substantial coverage to Bryan Dechart. Several of them do no more than list his name in a credit, and none of them gives more than two sentences of text about him. (A PROD was removed without explanation by an IP editor whose only other edit has been adding a Wikilink to this article into another article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jane_By_Design#Recurring_cast for now. When the upcoming movie is released he might (and I stress might) gain more coverage and pass notability guidelines, but right now he doesn't really pass WP:NACTOR. Dechart has not been the focus of any true in-depth coverage, none of his roles are overwhelmingly notable, and I don't see where he has such a huge and unique fanbase or cult following to where he'd pass on that criteria either. Pretty much at this stage he's one of many actors that have received some roles beyond "Rookie Cop #5" but none that have received notice. Since he seems to be best known for Jane By Design for right now, a redirect to the cast section on that page would probably be the best bet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Yang (poisoning victim)

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

There is nothing about this article that infers notability. It fails WP:N/CA and WP:VICTIM. WWGB (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nicely written, interesting, quite tragic, but I can't see which notability criterion this meets. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually a good sign that an ordinary murder victim in a nation of over a billion people gets so much news coverage. However so far no last notability is even asserted, much less shown. Borock (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under the Oughtta Be a Law of WP:NOTTRUECRIME. Closely related to the principle that Wikipedia is NOT A MEMORIAL and NOT A NEWS SUMMARY is the idea that Wikipedia should not be a registry of stories of murder and other crimes without lasting or historic importance. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Last Edit: Carrite (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business & Decision

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

This was listed for Prod as " Effectively unreferenced article about a non-notable business, another international consulting and system integration company that specialises in Business Intelligence (BI), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), e-Business and Enterprise Information Management (EIM)... (MEGO)."

Before we delete a company that is in Euronext and has a p. on the frWP, I'd prefer to have a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. The English and French articles are mirrors of each other. Both are referenced only to a business directory. I found nothing that looked like a reliable source actually being about this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG said "non-notable business" but also pointed out WP:LISTED which notes that publicly traded companies on major exchanges are notable.Euronext is the 5th largest stock exchange in the world and owned by the NYSE Euronext. WP:LISTED is not a sure thing, BUT in less than a minute of conducting WP:BEFORE, I found sources about the company: Reuters, Journal du Net (fr), 01net, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, IBN, Digital Journal, BusinessWeek, Israel Business Arena, Boursier.com (fr), Le Point (fr). I won't list every source I found, that's not the point of AFDs, but suffice to say a company that has €249 million euros ($325 million dollars US) in capitalization in a year and 2,800 employees will likely have coverage and it does. Article's in horrible shape, but those are not WP:DEL-REASONs. Mkdw ^talk 08:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Mkdw. I'm not so sure about the stock-exchange argument, but the news coverage implies notability. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. J04n(talk page) 11:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Ouest

AfDs for this article:

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

I already nominated this page for deletion, but it did not generate much discussion, perhaps because I expressed my rationale too mildly. "Paris-Ouest" simply does not exist in any way (apart tha "Université Paris-Ouest" refeers to Paris X Nanterre (a rather working class neighborhood by the way, not really in accordance with what this article describes). Superzoulou (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Googling a bit, it seems you are right that Paris-Ouest is mainly used for the University. I did see some references to "l´Ouest" as the rich part of the city, like "A Paris, l'Est vote Aubry, l'Ouest préfère Hollande", but using it as a concept (the rich areas) may be a bit different from using it as a definitive name: Paris-Ouest. Would be nice if some French chimed in, I notice they don't seem to have this article at the French Wikipedia, which may be an indication that it is not a common accepted area name. I'm leaning Delete here, maybe there is a possibility for restructuring/renaming or merging, but lack of proper sources in the article is an argument against that. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "l'Ouest parisien" is grammatically different from "Paris-Ouest". It refers to something rather vague, while "Paris-Ouest" suggests some kind of official concept, or at least a well defined area. While, on average, the Western part of Paris is substantially richer than the Eastern part, things are nowhere as clear-cut as the article has us believe. Actually, the article needs to change its definition of Paris-Ouest across paragraphs to fit its purpose (first the area around the "Voie Royale" and then the 6th, 7th, 8th and 16th arrondissement). Personal disclosure: I guess I should be considered a "Western-Parisian". --Superzoulou (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested French input. See here Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unless some French argue against it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a requested French input ;D Historically, l'ouest est bourgeois, l'est est ouvrier. But the concept « Paris Ouest » is more than rare (this ?), except for the University (not located in the concerned & rich "Paris-Ouest" area). I agree with previous comments: leaning towards deletion; the lack of sources makes the case hopeless. (copy/paste, thx Superzoulou) Personal disclosure: I guess I should be considered a "south-western-Parisian". Alvar☮ 19:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bihari people. J04n(talk page) 11:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpuri people

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

Topic lacks in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Also the reliability of the claims in the article seems dubious (based on original research). Talked with the creator and gave what I think was an ample amount of time to come up with WP:RSes but all in vain. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick Google search turns up information that the Bhojpuri might be a segment of the Bihari. The only lengthy article that I could find came from an evangelical website, describing them repeatedly in the article as the "Bhojpuri Bihari". There's very little information on them out there, and a lot more about their language. The article here on Wikipedia describing the Bihari also includes Bhojpuri speakers among them. If they're not an independent group of people, though, and are a distinctive segment of the Bihari, then I would definitely suggest a delete on the page, with information about the cultural distinctions common to Bhojpuri speakers on the Bihari page. Chri$topher 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree to scavenge the one relaible source here for the Bihari article and then deleting this article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that would be a good idea, although I don't know that I'll have the time to do it personally over the next few weeks. I'm in favor of a merge with Bihari, if you think that would be the appropriate course of action. Chri$topher 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bihari people. At least with a redirect, people interested in this ethnic group will be able to find the most relevant related topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect if possible, but I definitely agree with the redirect. Chri$topher 02:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the single reliable source and redirect to Bihari people per the dialogue above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ed Training

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Only reference is the IMDB page about the production company. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 03:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra K. Clarke

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination for Fivestarfluff, whose rationale was posted at the original AFD (here), and is included verbatim below. This appears to be the second AFD on this subject. On the merits, I have no opinion. Note that I'm transcluding this on 22 April, so I'd ask the closing admin to proceed accordingly (and ignore the 20 April date on the nomination below). Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails wp:bio has been nominated several times before but nothing seemed to happen. Advertising as others have mentioned. WP:BASIC has not been met and sources include blogs that lack fact checking. Stevies only possible reference but not enough for "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" Fivestarfluff (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New to this editing thing so forgive me if I'm flunking protocols by posting this, but found this delete notice when I looked Clarke up after hearing her on CBC radio today, and I was rather shocked by the thought it would be removed. I think she's at least as notable if not more than say, Olav Klokk, who came up in my random article link press! Even if the Americans on here don't know the Canadian media outlets noted are a big deal, surely the webby honour counts for something? - Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.75.254 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult for me to understand how this page could be listed for deletion. This woman has been nominated for a very large number of awards, won several, been profiled in many places, the company she founded employs over 100 people and has been characterized as a "massively successful international business", and a quick web search demonstrates she's considered an expert in her field because she's been interviewed and profiled in so many places (e.g. here, here, here, and here). Just because someone's been nominated for and won a ton of awards doesn't mean that a page that documents them is promotional. When I did some looking around on the web I quickly found (and added) two more.Ckyba (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the article as much as you are able, particularly to add as many references as you can. Do be careful, however - one of the main concerns that I took from the nomination was that the sources already in the article were lacking - and, when I see websites like flickr and PR Newswire, I tend to agree. Some of the sources you list here are blogs, which don't qualify as reliable sources. News coverage would be preferable, if you can find some. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the flickr link is actually a scan of a magazine article, which I presume is a reliable source. Since I don't have a copy of the actual publication I can't cite it directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckyba (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey St. Clair

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no evidence of notability. The sources given as "references" are all by Jeffrey St. Clair, not about him, but there are several "external links", which should be considered as references. One of those is an archived copy of an advertisement for a recording of a speech by Jeffrey St. Clair; others are certainly not independent sources, namely pages at socialistworker.org, www.pressaction.com and www.lewrockwell.com; one is a mere listing of articles by Jeffrey St. Clair. The only independent source, a review at www.nytimes.com, is mainly a book by another author, and merely mentions a book by St. Clair in a few sentences. The article was previously discussed in April 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey St. Clair, where the reason for the nomination was that the article was completely unsourced, and the nominator withdrew when sources were provided. However, as I have indicated, those sources are not enough to show notability, and, whatever may have been the case six years ago, standards of sourcing are now much higher than those achieved in this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. St. Clair is as notable as many other authors on wiki. I revisited the 2007 debate about deleting this article and was impressed by the following: "His book has been reviewed by the New York Times and he has written for Harper's Magazine [16], the Organic Consumers Association [17], and of course, a slew of left-wing magazines and sites (not added, he's pretty prolific, no reason to pick any specific articles) ... notable." These are pretty good credentials. I could find two dozen authors on wiki whose books have not made the NY Times or a magazine and prestigious as Harper's. And I'm mystified why an author who was notable in 2007 wouldn't be considered notable in 2013. Chisme (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As notable as many other authors on wiki" is not a good argument, both because some other articles should be deleted (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), and because simply saying so, without saying what other authors, or what the evidence of notability is, is not helpful. Where his work has been published is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are based on published coverage about him, not by him. Being "pretty prolific" is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines either, for the same reason. That leaves the mention of the review in the New York Times, which as I have said, merely mentions him in a couple of sentences. As for your being "mystified why an author who was notable in 2007 wouldn't be considered notable in 2013", I don't think that he satisfied the notability guidelines in 2007, and I think that the nominator was mistaken in withdrawing on the basis of inadequate sources being found. My remark that "whatever may have been the case six years ago, standards of sourcing are now much higher than those achieved in this article" was sort of giving the benefit of the doubt: I was saying, in effect, that, while I don't think that he satisfied the generally accepted standards then, even if he did he does not satisfy the generally accepted standards now. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? The guy is a columnist and editor at CounterPunch, a well-respected magazine. He co-authored several books (books published by reputable publishers) with the late Alexander Cockburn. He wrote a couple of books on his own. Objecting to his politics isn't a reason to remove the article about him. I object to his politics too, but he still deserves to be on wiki, I think. Chisme (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are "missing something". What you are missing is that Wikipedia's notability standards have nothing to do with how "well-respected" a magazine he writes for, or how many books he has co-authored. Maybe you disagree with the notability guidelines, in which case you are free to propose changing them. However, unless and until they are changed, he is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards unless there is substantial coverage of him in third party reliable sources, and so far nobody has shown that there is. As for "objecting to his politics isn't a reason to remove the article ", that is true but completely irrelevant, since nobody has suggested deleting the article for that reason. You say "I object to his politics too", as though you it goes without saying that I object to them, but in fact I don't, and, having carefully re-read what I have written, I can't see what on earth you think suggests that I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if writing columns for a well-respected magazine and writing books doesn't make you notable, what does? Maybe you don't understand what I mean by well-respected. The magazine St. Claire writes for isn't a throwaway. It has a long, storied history and is well read. His dozen or so books are not self-published or published by a little press. I still say keep. I don't know why you would need a "third party reliable source" to tell you the name of the magazine he writes for or the books he has published. Chisme (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage amongst numerous secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you say "significant coverage amongst numerous secondary sources", but where are those secondary sources? Simply saying that they exist, without saying where, is not enough. The only independent source which has been presented in the article, in this discussion, or anywhere else as far as I know, is, as I have said, a review that briefly mentions one of his works in a few sentences, at the end of what is primarily a review of a different work by a different author. If there are other reliable independent sources then please present them, because they are not verifiable if we don't know what sources they are. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Jeffrey St. Clair's work has been widely reviewed in numerous outlets. He has been interviewed widely as an environmental journalist. I will add sources to the page, which I believe will add more secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counterp (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Somebody is challenging the notability of Jeffrey St. Clair?" I asked myself — "THAT Jeffrey St. Clair?!?!" Yep, so it seems. Once again we run into the dysfunctional aspect of GNG when it comes to biographies of journalists and editors. Publications do not write about people who write for their competitors; publications who write about their contributors are considered "self-sourced" according to a strict reading of GNG. So you have a situation where Alexander Cockburn's colleague at Counterpunch, a prolific writer of books and articles, a contributing editor at In These Times, is essentially unsourcable under the rules. This is a case for common sense, for application of the Wikipedia fundamental policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES. I have made similar arguments for other journalists before and I expect I shall again until we address this problem head-on with an RFC for a Special Notability Guideline for journalists and editors. Which we really do need to do. Don't overthink this one, this is a common sense keep in the face of inherent structural sourcing issues for an entire profession. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as an author -- his books are in hundreds of libraries -- over 400 for Five days that shook the world . (& his book on Gore has bee reviewed by the TLS.) And I agree with Carrite that our notability requirements for journalists and allied professions need rethinking., for the reason given.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lelio Marino

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

Non-notable businessperson Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News Archive search shows extensive and significant coverage over many years.Though much is in the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, the depth and persistence of the coverage, and the range of his business activities, convinces me of his notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone feels that there was WP:MEDRS-compliant content that needs to be merged into stem-cell therapy where the topic can be adequate covered I will email the deleted text for such use. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regeneration therapy

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

Topic is already dealt with at stem cell therapy. Redirect there. No proper refs here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic appears to be a mixture of stem cell therapy and some other more fringe synthesis to the topic, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Content fork of Stem cell therapy mixed with non-notable and unreliably sourced fringe nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If there is any content that complies with WP:MEDRS (none that I could see), it can be properly incorporated into Stem cell therapy. I've dropped a note about this debate on the Stem cell therapy talk page. --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this article and labeled it Stub in order to get a positive cooperation elucidating the whole range of regeneration therapies. I hoped experts on the topic could provide research evidence against the electromedical methods. But now it seems censorship without research evidence is the practiced wiki way. Is stem cell therapy the only method that may be mentioned? OlavN (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "practised wiki way" is to get rid of unsourced personal speculations because they can't be verified. Try finding sources first and writing articles based on them. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to see an article on this, that is not about stem cells. Is there at least one secondary reference? The third paragraph of the article is not clearly written, and can easily be misinterpreted. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 22:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should make it clearer that it hasn't happened yet, but the possibility of such therapy has been repeatedly discussed, and references could be aded. I think we could even find sourcea for satisfying MEDRES somewhere in the extensive review literature on stem cells & related topics, not that I think MEDRES really applies to this sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should make clear that it hasn't happened, period (WP:CRYSTAL?). And then references must be added - they are not optional. There's a perfectly good article on Stem cells if you want to write about them, instead of creating an unsourced POV content fork. Whoever closes this ought to note that by project-wide consensus WP:RS #Medical claims tells us that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical assertions and sources used to support a medical claim - and anybody who thinks "Regeneration therapy is a therapy for stimulating the regrowth of an amputated or destroyed body part" isn't a medical claim needs to find out how to use an English dictionary. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "but the possibility of such therapy has been repeatedly discussed" is not falsifiable since you do not indicate what sources you are talking about. Is this based on your own personal feelings? I also agree with RexxS that the claim that MEDRS doesn't apply to a purported therapy to be an odd statement. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Looney (offensive lineman)

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

Subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Deadbeef (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is currently on the 49ers roster, he just hasn't played in any games yet.--Yankees10 03:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Yankees10, and the fact that failing WP:NGRIDIRON by itself is not a reason to delete an article at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. In the news search, there appear to be two such players of the same name, this player and one from the Colts in 1964. It will take some time to sift through it all. But some looks promising, such as NFL Draft 2012: Jim Harbaugh Comments On Picks Joe Looney, Darius Fleming and NFL draft preview: Guards ranks him the #9 pick at guard. We'd probably be better off to just wait and see what happens because it should become clear soon.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not convinced either way. The sources found appear to not be on the level of notability that would be expected from a more notable player. The coverage doesn't seem to be quite as widespread. My suggestion is that it either closes as "keep" or "no consensus" for later review. I see no harm in waiting for next season in light of the prospects of the individual. College linemen don't generate a lot of press to begin with, so the fact that he got some probably means something. Plus there is something to be said for Specialist topics.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per obvious consensus on drafted NFL players still in non-practice squad rosters. Found this related to the subject in just the second link in Google, coverage is out there arguably, fourth round pick of last year draft, probably would play in 2013. If he gets cut and never plays a down of professional football, he still meets GNG. Clear cut WP:BEFORE situation. Secret ^account 04:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Secret, can you please refer me to the "obvious consensus on drafted NFL players still in non-practice squad rosters." The only specific notability guideline of which I'm aware is WP:NGRIDIRON, which requires the player to have actually played in a regular season professional game in certain leagues, including the NFL. I have struggled with whether we should delete NFL draftees before the start of the season, but that is exactly what has happened in the past. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was wondering about that, too. There have been lots of NFL drafted athletes that get cut before preseason and those articles typically get deleted in AFD unless there is some other compelling reason to keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete.~~ Being on a pre-season NFL roster doesn't confer automatic notability. And my searches in Google news archive don't turn up much in the way of significant, non-trivial coverage on this Joe Looney (as opposed to the 1960s football player of the same name). There's this, but SB Nation appears to be a blog site, and I'm not sure whether or not it can be considered a reliable source. Even if it is reliable, I don't think that an isolated, one-paragraph write-up in a blog is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Looney may end up playing for the 49ers (in which case the article can be re-created), but he currently falls victim to the fact that dollegiate offensive linemen don't get a lot of press. Whether that's fair or unfair, it's the reality -- press coverage is what establishes notability for college football players under WP:GNG, and that coverage tends to be focused on the glamor positions like QB, RB, WR, CB etc. Absent more coverage than this, I don't think he passes muster. Willing to reconsider if additional coverage can be found. Cbl62 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep in light of additional sources found by Arxiloxos and added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cbl62's comment immediately above. I suspect that Looney will play in a regular season NFL game later this year and this article will be recreated per WP:NGRIDIRON. I ask that the closing administrator userfy this article on request for the article creator in order to expedite article recreation if and when that occurs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and either userfy or incubate. Not yet notable, but probably will be soon. Go Phightins! 02:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It's pretty likely that Looney's going to play this season, so userfying is also a consideration until he gets on the field. Zappa O Mati 02:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see the upside for the encyclopedia in going out of our way to delete articles about drafted players who make the team's active roster, as he did in 2012. In any case, however, significant coverage exists and can be found with some digging. I've added some sources, Google results show plenty more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If he was a first year professor at Harvard or Cambridge, he'd be deleted. Another example of a highly skewed notability criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Erin

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

Non-notable actress at this time with her only best known role being Young and the Restless as Abby Carlton for two years. There isn't any evidence to suggest she has won any awards (not even a Young Artist Award). Google News searches for some of the notable TV shows show minor mentions through episode listings (such as The Futon Critic) and other non-substantial links. I also found a Hollywood Reporter article about her here (requires subscription, but looking through a reprint, it doesn't seem to be substantial) and a blog here which provides some more details but nothing much. In 2010, she received attention for being casted in a MTV pilot Patito Feo but it doesn't seem to have aired. There are links for attending a dinner party with other Young and the Restless co-stars but it seems it only happened once. Even Emma Degerstedt (I saved this article from deletion) has won two Young Artist Awards for a TV show and her career is shorter. She's a young cute girl so I'm sure she'll have more work in the future so I have no objection towards userfying or a future article when she becomes notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing the same character for two consecutive years on a popular television show - especially one with hardcore never-miss fans, airing on a daily basis year-round - renders her notable in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillbillyGoat (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so but there still isn't much for an article, information or sources. In that case, it would be better to redirect the character (until she receives independent notability) as it has been done with other biographies. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, no, playing the same characer for two consecutive years on a popular television show – even one with hardcore, never-miss fans that airs on a daily basis year-round does not confer notability. See WP:NOTABILITY. Dricherby (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 03:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breast reduction drugs

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

Article says there is no evidence they work, yet says they work. Article is constructed by a synthesis of different papers to this topic. Does not pass WP:GNG. Sources like this: [18] are about treating specific medical conditions, they do not support whether or not danazol works on the general public as a breast size reducer. The article is synthesising papers like this into the subject IRWolfie- (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ridiculous synthesis of primary sources about disparate conditions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's mostly a mish-mash of various drugs used for breast-related diseases and disorders, with no clear nexus between the listed drugs, or between the drugs and the topic at hand.HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crap stub which does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards for medical coverage. WP:IAR delete, improve the encyclopedia through vaporization... Carrite (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing in the article contradicted itself. There are two different subsets to the topic, one is about professional medical use to treat unwanted conditions, the other is about dietary supplements. At least the first deserves mention, because its notable, the articles are about the conditions with treatment, and its factual about treating conditions. The medical professional use is not about general public use. The supplements section is about general public uses which there is nothing published, because it is fairly new. Lucy346 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lucy346 is the creator and primary author of the article. Zad68 14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamoxifen for the management of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review
NYTimes article Lucy346 (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a systematic review for Tamoxifen where it concerns "gynecomastia and breast pain", not for the general topic of breast reduction drugs. The NYT article is about surgery for gynecomastia, not this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, "prophylaxis or treatment" of gynecomastia, and an alternative to surgery. Tamoxifen "could lead to a complete resolution of gynecomastia." Lucy346 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only in passing, the rest is about surgery. Besides, as I said, Tamoxifen and gynecomastia are not at AFD. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the 1st source listed. You're referring to the New York Times article. Lucy346 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does that help? Neither are about the general topic of breast reduction drugs. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, it's in the title. Lucy346 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good amount of secondary source coverage. Also, agree with analysis by Lucy346 (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage are you referring to? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Breast reduction. The article, on its own, is arguably too non-notable to stand. However, it has valid content that is lacking from the general breast reduction article, and should be transferred over. Dea db eef 03:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious original synthesis not mentioned in any medical textbook or review article.Kiatdd (talk)
Delete, context-specific coverage should be at the individual articles Macromastia, Gynecomastia, etc. No redirect possible. As HillbillyGoat stated, there is no source providing a "nexus between the listed drugs" so collecting them into one article is a WP:SYNTH problem. Zad68 14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Physical Society

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

University student society that does not meet WP:GNG. If relevant, I am the Vice President of the society currently, and still see no reason for the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only coverage I can find about this society, despite its considerable age, is the book, already cited in the article, entitled Oliver Lodge And The Liverpool Physical Society, published by Liverpool University Press, and a passing mention of the society in Lodge's obituary.[19] The book is available for scrutiny at GBooks.[20] Is it enough to support a separate article? If not, the book reference and a bit of the text from this article could be merged into Oliver Lodge. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge; GNG requires multiple sources, and there's no precedent for leniency with student societies – Ypnypn (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:GNG does not require multiple sources, but says that they are generally expected. When a source is a 310-page book about the topic from a university press it would seem reasonable to treat it as an exception to the general expectation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It would have to be a very unusual student society to qualify for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. Just so we are all on the same page here: as the cited book explains in detail, this was not, originally, a student society, and only became so some years after it was founded. Based on those portions of the book available in the GBooks preview, it appears that this organization was "notable", in some sense, during the 1890s, but perhaps not so much for the decades thereafter for which no sources have been found. As I said above, that may not be enough to support an article, but at least a bit of this material is germane to Oliver Lodge. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article here covers the physical society in as much manner as the section at Oliver Lodge does which seems somewhat redundant. I guess I'm in favour of keeping information on the society to that article, I don't think a separate article is justified. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Liverpool. This is some good info, just not enough for a standalone page. J04n(talk page) 18:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been explained above that in its heyday this society was not affiliated to the University of Liverpool. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. also as explained above it is inappropriate to redirect to University of Liverpool. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jwing-Ming Yang

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

There's nothing that establish notability for inclusion. Searches basically point to two things, an organization to which the topic is affliated with and a bibliography of his books. Neither determines notability. Cold Season (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article currently lacks independent coverage. Don't know if the "man of the year" awards mentioned in the article are enough to show notability alone, but sourcing them would help him meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is transcluded to the April 29 log. Did you mean to transclude it to the April 30th log? Ping me if you want a hand. czar · · 23:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has mostly primary sources. Also, I'm not really seeing a credible assertion of notability either as an MMA artist or an author. As such, with no WP:SIGCOV, I'm inclined to !vote delete unless someone finds multiple reliable and secondary sources that talk about the subject in-depth. Mkdw ^talk 01:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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