Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 August 23 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.K. Santhakumari

[edit]
P.K. Santhakumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no coverage in reliable third-party sources beyond a passing mention and a single sentence in The Hindu. Nothing found via Google News. Huon (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:53, 23 August 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. No prejudice against redirecting.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Gundewar

[edit]
Sai Gundewar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Not notable. Original authors Deejayamit (talk · contribs) blocked for socking. Deprodded by Edit Author (talk · contribs) who entirely coincidentally admits a conflict of interest and happens to be a new editor. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 09:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt really matter me being a new breed here. The point is the person in the article is genun. With valid references linking to many other pages on wiki. And i have personally know Sai in person. This is s clear case of user conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit Author (talk • contribs) 00:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject appears well-down the cast lists for his recent films and his IMDB filmography includes such roles as "Male EVK Robot", "Friend", "Bartender", "Gay lover" and most recently "Ticket seller"; these indicate a jobbing actor and are insufficient for WP:NACTOR. This leaves the question of whether the subject's appearances in a couple of reality TV shows amount to notability as an entertainer, probably a less objective evaluation, but one in need of substantial WP:RS coverage. Happy to revise my opinion if someone does locate such coverage. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MTV Splitsvilla#Season 4. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Maybe he will have more prominent roles in the future, but it does not yet appear that he is a notable actor. TheBlueCanoe 17:33, 29 August 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. I fully expect this to head straight for DRV (just let me know, whoever does it) but I simply can't see any rebuttal of WP:NOTNEWS here. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Christopher Lane

[edit]
Death of Christopher Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This death is unpleasant rather than notable. I fear that drive by killings happen all the time. They do make the news, but, unless significant for other reasons, then they fade away as unremarkable, but unpleasant, incidents. WP:NOTNEWS applies. We are sad for those who knew and were affected by the dead young man, but this cannot be an article here unless his death is otherwise notable than being just another drive by killing.

We must not confuse personal and press outrage with true notability of the event. It was unpleasant, sad, perhaps even shocking in its brutal banality, but not in any way notable in a Wikipedia sense. Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may be worth a read. The notability is inherited by comparison only, not of its own. Could reasonably exist as a section in Trayvon Martin#Media coverage or a paragraph in the "Verdict implications" section. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the alleged racial issues if entered into the article are WP:SYNTH. One cannot connect the two shootings except isofar as a gun was used. One was a vigilante who shot a kid, the other was three bored youths who allegedly shot a kid. Ah yes, there's a link with kids, too. Every killing with guns and kids os not notable. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the guide to which you link, I note that "In the News" is a major heading on WP's home page. While WP "isn't the news" - newsworthy subjects are certainly a foundation of WP, whether WP wants to admit it or not. Today's news is tomorrow's (and properly today's) encyclopedia entry. I don't think this isn't the sort of local or passing story to which the guide refers. John2510 (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newsworthiness and notability are distinct. "Timeliness" and "Sensationalism" are two keys to newsworthiness taught in journalism schools, but not in our guidelines. The hot air surrounding the story is developing into a story of its own, due to the proximity of the Trayvon Martin thing. This hot air is only loosely connected to the event, it does not change the event itself or its direct consequences. Do you remember the week after the Miami cannibal attack? Papers were leading with every vaguely "zombie-ish" story they would have otherwise ignored, trying to invent a pattern. I think there were eight in the news that week. Probably eight in the world this week, but it's not timely anymore. And this is just as unenduring as those. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was more than just a mundane news story about a drive-by shooting. This was an incident that it fairly notable and has gotten the attention of many people. I asked several of my friends online who live all across the US, and they all were aware of this incident. Where I live in California, most people seem to have heard of this incident and seem to be interested to learn more about it as the trial unfolds. 98.207.226.90 (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google News is far better for keeping up with current events, as it was expressly designed to do. Wikinews is no hit, I admit, but it's the closest you'll get with a "Wiki" on the front, for more routine stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about deleting the article about the event. The article only mentions a comment from the former deputy Prime Minister, and it's only basically "Consider your safety before travelling to a country with many shootings". Not remarkable advice. If the event is notable, the article should reflect it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 27 August 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 José Celso Barbosa. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was soundly kept back in 2006, though AfD had different standards back then, to put it mildly. The claims that all congressional legislation is notable seem wrong on the face of it. Bills to name post offices are WP:ROUTINE. So what we're left with is that this "may have been the first time that material from Wikipedia" was used in a bill. Even if this is true, unless the fact caused the bill to garner significant coverage in reliable sources—which does not seem to be the case—we're left with nothing worth keeping. BDD (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It was good enough to have been kept then, it is good enough to be kept now. For a Wikipedia article to be considered important enough to be included in a Congressional House Bill (and so far the only known case) is incredible in itself. Even though it did not receive media coverage, it is still part of Wikipedia's history and legacy. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am inclined to regard primary legislation as inherently notable for being what it is. (Delegated legislation might be conveniently redirected to the enactment it was made under). Primary legislation is never routine. I imagine that this Act is included in collections of annotated statues. I seem to remember someone mentioning something called the Federal Gazette in an earlier debate. The fact that comprehensive publications such as Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes Annotated exist can be viewed as evidence that all primary legislation is notable. When this Act is eventually repealed there will be something substantial to write about it (of interest from the point of view of statute law revision). Indeed, if we can establish that it is still in force, that is also substantial. James500 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ROUTINE is not applicable because a piece of legislation is not an event. James500 (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How so? In the US, Congress names post offices, but this is routine business for them. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If other legislatures don't do this, it isn't routine in any sense. The Parliament of the United Kingdom never does this.
WP:ROUTINE redirects to wp:notability (events). A piece of legislation is not an event. James500 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Section 2 of this Act provides for the interpretation of statutes and other documents. This kind of non-textual amendment might affect the intelligibility of such documents (which is considered to be objectionable in some quarters). I imagine that public money might have spent on promulgating this Act etc (which is considered to be objectionable in some quarters). This Act is presumably taking up space on the statute book (and "too many statutes" is considered to be objectionable in some quarters). James500 (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing to satisfy the GNG, as I'm unable to find any substantial treatment of the topic in reliable secondary sources (certainly, none of the three citations in the article are such). Legislation doesn't get more insignificant than this, and the "may have been the first time that material from Wikipedia has been deemed important enough to have been included in a U.S. bill" business (which is not supported by the cited sources or by any other source I can find) is simply ridiculous. The information that the fellow was honored by having a post office named for him is in our José Celso Barbosa article, which is where it belongs. Deor (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Squandering public money and degrading the intelligibility of the statute law and other documents is not insignificant. In any event that is just your POV. Other people (not including myself) might even think that the symbolic value of this kind of Act is important. James500 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG isn't strictly a grounds for deletion. That guideline doesn't work in reverse and doesn't create a presumption of non-notability.
If the government sources are trustworthy, I'm not desperately concerned about whether or not they are secondary. James500 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty strong language, but the sentiment is reasonable. No objections from me. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking something along the line of List of bills naming United States Post Offices? Yes, that would seem to meet WP:CSC criterion 2. (From what I can tell, we don't have any other articles on bills that renamed post offices.) --BDD (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a ton of them. If I recall correctly from checking the sources yesterday, six other post offices were named just on the same day as this one. I doubt that such a list would be acceptable unless there are secondary sources dealing substantively with this particular type of legislation. Even though we can have lists where the individual entries aren't notable, I doubt the advisability of a list in which the topic itself isn't notable. Deor (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it might be a notable topic. I searched Google for "post office renaming" and immediately got this from the New York Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/one-area-in-which-congress-excels-naming-post-offices/?_r=1 James500 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that if the number of these Acts is large, that is something that militates in favour of them being notable as a group. James500 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, the many results that come up on Google for "post office renaming" include, amongst others, articles from ABC News [3], Fox News [4] and MSN Now [5] discussing these Acts a group. James500 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I find the arguments of User:Marine 69-71 and User:James500, as detailed above, to be very compelling. In addition, 24 MORE editors voted to KEEP this article, in an overwhelming vote a few years ago. [6]
I don't even understand why this article was AfD'd all over again - it was already KEPT by a vote of 24 to 1, and the record of that discussion is clear and unambiguous. [7]
If you delete this article, then why not delete this article? Amelioration Act 1798. Or this one? Infanticide Act. Or any of these? Fox's Libel Act, Rule in Wild's Case, Rule in Dumpor's Case.
In fact, why not delete two or three dozen articles from this list? Index of law articles.
Bills introduced into the U.S. Congress and passed into law are notable per se. It would be arbitrary and capricious to single out this one article about this one law. Especially after 24 EDITORS already voted to KEEP it. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that passed congressional bills are automatically notable? Is that your opinion, or is there a policy or guideline you're referring to? See also my answer below to James500 regarding the previous AfD (nutshell: a keep result doesn't mean you can't have another discussion, and AfD was a very different animal back then). You may want to review WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:ALLORNOTHING. I'm not recommending deletion of any of those articles. Stay focused. --BDD (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer to you below, observing that your comments nothing to do with me. James500 (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me; the page history is a bit tangled, and I obviously misread it. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it could not be verified that the Bill for this Act was definitely the first to cite Wikipedia, one could argue that any Bill introduced into Congress that cited Wikipedia in 2006 is notable, regardless of whether it was the first or the umpteenth. That is something that could be verified simply by looking at a copy of the Bill. No one could say that that was WP:OR. James500 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC) If we subsequently discovered an earlier Bill we could just move the cut off point back. Perhaps we should have a subject notability guideline for early references to Wikipedia. James500 (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The Jose Celso Barbosa bio. on the article was edited and posted on "March 25, 2006" [8]. The bill containing the contents of the Wikipedia article was introduced to Congress on August 2006 File:H.R.3440.jpg. 2 + 2 = 4, it doesn't get much clearer than that. Unless proven otherwise, this is part of Wikipedia history. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep-A quick read of the bill makes it evident that a Wikipedia article was the prime source of the text of this bill, which makes it quite remarkable and demonstrative of Wikipedia's growing influence in society and growing level of credibility as a reliable source of information. Pr4ever (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Act naming a Post office. It's routine bill passed to name a PO, even if it's the first bill to reference Wiki that should be in an article about Wiki, not in an article about the act. As for the other acts listed in a vote above, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to apply. Caffeyw (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't delete plausible redirects unless they are actually harmful. REDIRECTSARECHEAP. The man for whom the Act is named has an article in which the Act is (rightly) mentioned.
    • The Act is only routine, if at all, from a US-centric POV. And we don't do that either. James500 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC) You also have to consider whether Congress has always done this or whether it is a recent development. It might be that in the sweep of world history this particular class of legislation is a local and temporal aberation that is very unusual indeed. James500 (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked at Wikipedia: Other stuff exists and saw this: "Identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight." So the prior existence of another comparable article DOES provide a valid precedent and consistency. In this case, we have DOZENS of prior articles with similar content, sourcing, and levels of notability. They appear in virtually every letter of this alphabetical list: Index of law articles. There is NO WAY that you can single out this one article about this one law, without deleting dozens of others from the Index of law articles and from our Wikipedia.
Especially since 24 EDITORS ALREADY VOTED TO KEEP THIS ARTICLE in a prior AfD.[9]
Comment. The offence of infanticide and the Libel Act 1792 mentioned above are not good examples as they are in fact discussed in minute detail by encyclopedias and treatises on English law. James500 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC) That may be, James, but the articles Fox's Libel Act and Infanticide Act in this Wikipedia contain virtually no sourcing or information, and there are many more articles like this in the Index of law articles and in our Wikipedia project. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James, I notice that you weren't around in 2006. Nothing wrong with that, but AfD was a very different world back then. Very few of those editors were making policy-based arguments. It's perfectly legitimate to discuss an article at AfD multiple times, especially when it's been so long since the last one. --BDD (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said anything at all about the previous AfD debate. I can only assume that you must be referring to something said by another user. James500 (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me; the page history is a bit tangled, and I obviously misread it. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deletion should not have been the only option given. The nominator seems to have forgotten that there is also the option of "re-directing" the article to that of the article of the main notable subject, which in this case is Jose Celso Barbosa. Antonio Martin (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Excuse me Whpq, but my vote is a definite “keep” from deletion. I only suggested that a redirect option was not mentioned by the nominator, that’s all. Antonio Martin (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see lots of commentary indicating a belief that the use of wikipedia in this routine bit of government activity to be significant. I see no evidence offered that this is significant in any way via reliable sources. The opinion of wikipedia editors do not constitute a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Act is not routine from a neutral point of view. Other countries don't pass this kind of legislation at all. Even in the US, this seems to be a recent development. Read WP:NPOV.
    • Notability is a Wikipedia concept invented by Wikipedians. Reliable sources don't decide what is notable. We decide. We do have subject notability guidelines which say, in effect, that certain things are inherently notable. If I was preparing a subject notability guideline for law, primary legislation would be the first item that I would include (with the possible exception of classes of legislation that can be convieniently dealt with by lists to which each statute is redirected and in which its information is tabulated).
    • The government sources do appear to be reliable. I am not inclined to doubt THOMAS, the Congressional Record, the US Statutes at Large, etc. If this Act is so insignificant, why has the State published all this information about it. Presumably they must think that it is significant and that someone is interested. In the UK, IIRC, some private Acts weren't printed at all. Only their titles were published. James500 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, where have you looked for sources? You need to physically go to a law library and conduct a search of the stuff that hasn't been digitized yet. James500 (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. A lot of people here are trying to apply WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE to this article but everyone seems to forget that both WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE are guidelines, not policies. The only policies that I can think of that apply here are WP:ISNOT, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:EDIT. So lets examine the policies rather than the guidelines, since, per WP:CONSENSUS, another policy, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." So, we must examine our policies, not our guidelines, to reach consensus on this matter.
First of all, WP:ISNOT states that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. This article does not violate such statement as it is written in an encyclopedic manner.
Reviewing WP:NOTPAPER, we have that:

...there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. [...]articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

Once again, this article does not violate such policy as it abides to our content policies and our WP:FIVEPILLARS.
On WP:NOTEVERYTHING we have that:

...information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.

Once again, this article does not violate such policy as (1) it is not a complete exposition of all possible details (2) it is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject and (3) its statements are verifiable, sourced, and treated with appropriate weight.
Revising WP:INDISCRIMINATE we have:

...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.

Once again, the article does not violate such policy since the explanations are referenced to an independent source, namely GovTrack which is not owned nor run by the government, and is instead run by Joshua Tauberer.
Finally, we have WP:EDIT which states that:

Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide [...] the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles[...] However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. You are invited to show that information is verifiable by referencing reliable sources.

Once again, this article does not violate such policy as it (1) was created boldly but not recklessly by an editor following policy (2) all its content is verifiable and (3) it provides reliable sources to make its content verifiable.
So, as an editor who is not interested in this article, I cannot come up with any policy that would lead me to believe that this article should be deleted. Make your own judgements.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being "owned or run by the government" does not necessarily preclude independence. The incorporated status of the State is a legal fiction which might potentially bear no relation to reality at all, such as where, for example, changes in personel mean that the present "government" is effectively a completely different entity from one of its predecessors. James500 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to José Celso Barbosa#Recognition. IMO, there is not enough content to warrant a separate page. The gist of the article, in its current form with only eight sentences of prose, could easily be condensed and merged into the main Barbosa article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The undisputed facts here are that this article is about an Act of Congress, that Wikipedia information was taken by a member of Congress to produce a Bill that was subsequently signed into law resulting in said Act, and that a copiuos number of editors have already weighted in on this matter in the past with a "Keep" result. Other than a vague reference from the nominator to the effect that "AfD had different standards back then", I do not see anything here that can change the historical value of this article. "Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it. --Oscar Wilde." My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Merge to José Celso Barbosa. The Act's only claim to notability is that its supporters cited Wikipedia, apparently for the first time; which is just not a big deal. If this self-reference is really deemed to be important, maybe it should be memorialized along the lines of what's done with court cases at WP:Wikipedia as a court source or WP:Wikipedia in judicial opinions. Apart from that, this article is is a great example of WP:Run-of-the-mill, and while that essay is neither policy or guideline, it makes a lot of sense. This Act is twice-removed from notability. The Act is not notable. The building that is the target of the Act is not notable. The person for whom the building that is the subject of the Act is notable. Merge it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎TJRC (talk • contribs)
    • WP:MILL is a load of nonsense which . . . contradicts WP:PERFORMANCE, . . . Wikipedia simply cannot get "clogged" . . . . . In any event, Acts of Congress are far removed from the examples given in that essay (which seems to me to be a misreading of NOTPHONEBOOK, NOTNEWS etc - the number of residential properties, sports events etc is not the issue). James500 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERFORMANCE isn't policy (or a guideline). --BDD (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have redacted the erroneous remarks. James500 (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, to describe an Act of Congress as an ordinary, everyday, commonplace thing per WP:MILL is absolutely preposterous because such Acts are inherently unusual by virtue of the fact that only one body of persons can pass them. To employ a fairly crude metaphor, if a person walks down the street, he is very unlikely to see people passing Acts of Congress. James500 (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Governments at all levels, and all around the world pass legislation. It's what they do. It's not inherently unusual for a body that is responsible for passing legislation to pass legislation. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Passing legislation is not part of the everday life of ordinary people. You might as well talk about a run of the mill country or a run of the mill war or a run of the mill murder. Some classes of people, events and things are inherently significant. James500 (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on murders are frequently deleted as run-of-the-mill. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually quite shocking when you consider that murder is both rare and widely considered to be very serious. (I'm not saying these articles should not have been deleted, just that I wouldn't invoke WP:MILL in support of that). James500 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rare compared to what? The odds that any single individual will be murdered are pretty low, but in general, murder is literally an everyday occurrence. But we're getting off-topic. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those who believe that naming post offices are not a routine thing, I'd like to point to Acts of the 112th United States Congress, which would indicate that 45 acts were passed naming postal facilities, and looking at Acts of the 111th United States Congress, 70 such acts were passed. So what we have here is in fact routine legislation being passed, with no significant coverage about the legislation. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other countries do not pass this type of legislation. Far from being routine, it appears to be a bizarre local anomaly that is attracting criticism. We can't determine what is and is not routine from a national POV. James500 (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the NY Times article noted above, I quote "Passing these bills has become routine, and it is usually done without much debate or dissent." So yes, all evidence points to the naming of post offices as run of the mill stuff. That the US has a quirk that requires legislation to name a post office is not the topic of discussion here; it is the one specific act, "Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act" which is under discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not routine or run of the mill if the majority of countries do not do that. The article in the NYT is obviously written from a national POV and is not relevant on this point. James500 (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC) And one article expressing one person's opinion is not particularly compelling evidence either. James500 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly: "In each of the past five Congresses over 15% of all bills passed and signed into law named a Post Office." "In Past Decade, Congress Has Made Naming Post Offices a Top Priority". Courier Express and Postal Observer. January 8, 2013. Retrieved August 27, 2013. And: "More than one in five of the public laws passed by the 110th and 109th Congresses were post office naming bills." "Naming Post Offices Through Legislation (CRS report no. RS21562)" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. February 20, 2009. Retrieved August 28, 2013. Really, it's pretty hard to find any congressional enactment that is more routine and less notable than an act naming a post office. If you want to claim notability for this particular legislation, you have to come up with something more. TJRC (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only from a US-centric POV which is not compatible with NPOV. Do you have any evidence of other countries doing this? James500 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC) The passages you have quoted don't actually use the word "routine" either. Numbers alone don't necessarily make for routine. James500 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm citing them as support that these enactments are routine, not that the sources use the same label. The legislative practices of other countries are immaterial. Congress enacting an act naming a post office is a routine act, regardless of what other countries do. That's not POV, that's just pointing out that it's routine. They raise the U.S. flag over the Capitol every morning, and no other country does that, either; that doesn't mean it isn't routine when it's done in the U.S.
What I have not seen in any of this discussion ,or in the article, is any supported claim that this Act has had any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only references in the article are to the bill itself and to the Congressional Record, which covers all congressional floor activity, regardless of importance or notability. Where are the sources that are alleged to make this pass WP:GNG? TJRC (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unable to agree that the perceived routiness of this Act means that it is not notable. I think, in particular, that the example of the flag is not relevant as you are not comparing like for like. Other countries do raise their own flags over their own public buildings, which is broadly equivalent. There is no reason to imagine they pass any legislation that is even remotely similar to these kind of Acts. The legislative practices of other countries are relevant if they provide perspective.
  • The fact that something fails GNG does not necessarily mean that it is not worthy of notice. See above. In this case, it is quite open to me to argue that Acts of Congress are notable per se, for being what they are, regardless of whether they are considered routine or not, as long as they can be verified with one trustworthy source, which is the only absolute requirement.
  • As regards congressional floor activity, I observe that we have, for example, the dates on which this Act passed through its legislative stages, I observe that equivalent information for Acts of Parliament is included in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes Annotated and I infer, by analogy, that such information is encyclopedic.
  • I think that the only plausible argument in favour of merger is length. I am inclined to oppose a merger to the article on the doctor because I think a merger to an article on post office renaming might be preferable. Such an article would have to be created first. James500 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FireCMD

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
FireCMD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recreated in substantially the same form with substantially the same motley mix of primary sources, unreliable blogs and on-line catalogs as was offered last time when the outcome at AfD was delete. My request for speedy deletion was contested. Okay, we're back to AfD again. Msnicki (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Rex Conn is writing it, it's still a personal blog. The only editorial control is whatever he wants. Msnicki (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a personal blog. Its Jp Software Company's blog. Weblog material written by professionals writing within their field are acceptable. SmackoVector (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rex Conn basically is JP Software. Msnicki (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he is the only person running the company, it doesn't make any difference as he is a professional researcher and developer in this field. It can be clearly seen by reading the reviews that they are not quickly generated or user submitted content unlike some cheap download directory review. It clearly seems that editors have used the product before writing the review. They have mentioned both the pros and cons about the product. These points clearly suggests editorial oversight. SmackoVector (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. I just read that Rex Conn blog item. There's a bit of my life I will never get back. Did you read this thing? If you really can't make it through the whole thing, at least take a look near the bottom where he's a got a chart comparing his own Take Command product to FireCMD, concluding, "Summary: FireCMD in its current form doesn’t offer any significant advantages over the other Windows console replacements I’ve reviewed in parts 1 – 6, and it only has a tiny fraction of the features available in Take Command." This isn't reliable and independent reporting. He has a sales motive that has nothing to do with taking note of FireCMD. He's just writing hit pieces on every competitor he can find. Msnicki (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You are right. He clearly has a sales motive and the review is also more negative (obviously no one will write great things about competitor's product). But still it is notable as competitor's review is not a primary source. His reviews and articles are already used as sources on Wikipedia (at least I have found couple of articles). If this was the only source supporting the article, I would have definitely changed my vote to "delete" but still there is an another source (findmysoft) which makes me to stick on my decision. SmackoVector (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is one thing to cite a blog item as a source for a claim in an article here on Wikipedia. That's allowed. It is something else to claim notability based on a blog item. That's not allowed because notability requires WP:RELIABLE sources. Findmysoft.com is a catalog site. From their About us page, "FindMySoft is one of the largest software download directories with more than 150.000 software titles". They "review" anything they can, just to bump their count. This is exactly what was offered last time. Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
findmysoft.com does not review anything they can. Like CNET they only review selected software that meets their quality criteria and they just place publisher's description for lesser known software. CNET is a bigger software directory than findmysoft.com . That doesn't make it unreliable. findmysoft.com is certainly a reliable source. SmackoVector (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
findmysoft.com is NOT like CNET. CNET is a genuinely respected and notable source and we have an article on them. They're owned by CBS Corporation, an organization with a reputation for reliable reporting that stretches back to names like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow. We do not have an article on findmysoft. Another difference is that because CNET isn't primarily a catalog site, their standards are higher. findmysoft may have a "review" of FireCMD, but CNET does not. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if findmysoft.com does not have an article? 90% of the sources used all over Wikipedia don't have a Wikipedia page. CNET has included FireCMD in their directory : http://download.cnet.com/FireCMD/3000-2094_4-75910134.html . Not an editor review, but they have found it notable enough to include in their respected and reputed directory. And I don't understand why you have given the search type as searchtype=news! Check this: http://news.cnet.com/1770-5_3-0.html?query=firecmd . Rex Conn has found it notable enough (even if his intention is sales of his product). findmysoft.com has found it notable enough. Findmysoft is also not just a catalog site like CNET: Check this: http://www.findmysoft.com/news/. Its an editorial review and not mere publisher's description. Jerome Johnston has graduated from the Computer Science Faculty and he learned a lot about programming and Information Technology. So he is not just an another content writer paid to quickly generate crap content. Its a genuine review and there is no doubt about its reliability. SmackoVector (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful: Jerome Johnston's self-written page on findmysoft has the appearance of a person lacking any academic credentials (perhaps a high school student - that's the kindest interpretation that can be made from the material). TEDickey (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're having difficulty parsing the author info. Academic credentials are clearly mentioned as graduation from the Computer Science Faculty. Link: http://www.findmysoft.com/author/Jerome-Johnston/ SmackoVector (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read it. Nothing there worth discussing. Start with | google to understand why there's nothing to discuss. TEDickey (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to make the same point, but you beat me to it. What the heck is the "Computer Science Faculty"? I don't think this individual has any credentials at all. It's impossible to verify the school he says he went to even exists. I suspect by now that SmackoVector has to know this "review" and the Conn blog item are WP:QUESTIONABLE sources for good reasons that match the guidelines but that, as a matter of pride, he's unable to admit a mistake, strike through his !vote and change it. (Once wrong, stay wrong!) SmackoVector, I can see you're new to WP, but when the evidence says you're wrong, you need to be able to get over it. (I change my !votes all the time when new sources or better arguments are offered.) Msnicki (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found too many "Computer Science Faculty" when I searched on Google. He must have graduated from any one of them. We are not here to discuss biography of Jerome Johnston. There is no reason or evidence to consider this as WP:UNRELIABLE. This is not the matter of pride for me but for you Msnicki. You seem desperate to win the discussion or delete FireCMD by any way. But I will assume good faith. Sources are not primary sources and are independent of the subject. There is clear Editorial oversight. findmysoft sources are used all over the place. Even on pages as important as Java_version_history. SmackoVector (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know that he must have graduated from somewhere because he says so on the internet?
Re: sourcing, we make a distinction on Wikipedia between deciding whether to have an article and what it should say. Here at AfD, the only question is WP:Notability, where the standard is that you need multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Each of those words has a more technical definition here than in everyday conversation. For example, it's not enough that a source seems reliable, but that, from WP:RELIABLE#Overview, it must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It doesn't appear to me that findmysoft even bothered to fact-check where their writer went to school. They certainly don't have any reputation we can point to. At best, all you're offering is your assurance that it looks good to you. And that's just not enough to clear the bar as a reliable independent secondary source at AfD.
But that doesn't mean that WP:PRIMARY or WP:QUESTIONABLE sources can never be used. Of course they can, exactly as you found in the Java article. But note that it wasn't used to establish notability of the subject, only to establish that Sun Java 6 Update 11 was probably released on Dec 3, 2008, apparently only because Oracle failed to give a date on their official release notes page for that update. Was findmysoft a good enough source for that purpose? Well, who cares. I can't imagine arguing that one, since the point is so minor. Msnicki (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AudioExpert ? Only findmysoft source is used to establish notability. I don't think we should continue this discussion. Neither I will be able to convince you nor you will be able to convince me. You have given your vote and I have given mine. End of Discussion. SmackoVector (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, that's the German site. They can do what they like. Second, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Who knows how long that article will stick around before it's nominated for deletion. Third, there is a difference between no usable sources cited and no sources available. Here at AfD, the question isn't about content and whether appropriate sources have been cited but whether they exist. If it's a content problem, that can always be fixed and we should (and I do, all the time) !vote to keep. But if suitable sources do not exist, that cannot be fixed. In this case, those sources do not exist. But maybe they will soon. Often with new products, it may just be that it's WP:TOOSOON. But have some faith in the guidelines. If it's genuinely attracting attention, someone will write about it in a reliable source soon enough. Msnicki (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I, too, was struck by the fact the the author of the leading product in this area, Rex Conn, felt moved to write about it. Further, even Conn's product, Take Command Console, doesn't get much coverage in mainstream publications, and there are many other examples of programs with a fairly wide user base, but without much coverage in popular media. That lack of coverage is quite understandable, but it shouldn't lead to the deletion of articles about significant programs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My objection isn't that Conn's blog piece is negative, it's that it's not a WP:RELIABLE source, as required to establish notability. To the contrary, it is the essence of a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." (emphasis added) Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your characterisisation of Conn's blog as being widely acknowledged for its extremist views, relying on rumours, etc. is wrong. I maintain that he is the author of the leading program in the field of replacements for Microsoft's cmd.exe and that gives his opinion in this case extra weight. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're having difficulty parsing the "or" in the original text of WP:QUESTIONABLE or if bolding the particular words I relied on just wasn't a big enough clue. I am NOT claiming Conn's blog represents extremist views or that he relies on rumors. I AM claiming it lacks editorial oversight, that it's promotional and that it's personal opinion. That makes it WP:QUESTIONABLE and unsuitable for establishing notability under WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's perhaps worth following up on your remark, "even Conn's product, "Take Command Console, doesn't get much coverage in mainstream publications". Consider what Conn is doing: He wants to sell his product. He knows that his command line stuff is never going to be in the news again unless he shoots someone. But there still is a market for that product segment and he wants to reach his customers. It's pretty likely he relies mostly on people discovering him through search engines. So now the problem is how to show up everywhere, even when people are searching for his competitors or for other terms that suggest they're a good prospect. His solution is to write a page on that topic (and every other he can think of that's next on the list) and title it a review or some such. With luck, it pops right to the top in Google. When people get to his page, he sells them his own product. You're looking at an ad page, one of many he's designed, hoping they'll let him show up high on Google for various search terms. This also is not like CNET. Msnicki (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Michael Bednarek. Rex Conn has found FireCMD notable enough to compare it with his product (even if his intention is to make his product look superior than his competitor's product). Rex Conn is a professional researcher and developer in this field and we can't ignore this fact. You wrote: "He knows that his command line stuff is never going to be in the news again unless he shoots someone." and he has written this review for "people searching for his competitors". If this is the case then Wikipedia should definitely have an article for a product for which people are searching on Google and want information about it. I clearly understand what you are trying to convey Msnicki, but this thing only adds to the notability of the subject. It is so notable that competitor of the product has to write about it and compare with his product to convert potential FireCMD buyers into Take Command Console buyers! SmackoVector (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines do not provide that a subject is notable if only Rex Conn (or any other individual you personally happen to think is an authority) writes something on his personal blog. To the contrary, the guidelines label that kind of source WP:QUESTIONABLE and useless in establishing notability. If you can't accept the guidelines as rules we will all agree to play by, why are you here? Msnicki (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Rex Conn's personal blog as I said earlier. He doesn't write about what he did last weekend. Its JP Software's blog maintained by Rex Conn. JP Software is a different entity even if he is the only person running the company. This is the description about the company: "We are owned and operated by refugees from the corporate wars who wanted to have a little more control over our results and fun in our lives. Our primary products are command processors, tools that assist the user in working at the command line (the C:\> prompt) and with batch files. We currently offer products for Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista, Windows 2008, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 2012." http://jpsoft.com/company/company.html . This means he is not the only owner. If you still doubt you can find and provide a WP:RS but still that won't make much difference. He only writes about the field of subject in the blog. He is a professional researcher and developer in this field. Weblog material written by professionals writing within their field are acceptable. He has contributed in this field and also in open source community by developing 4DOS and Take Command Console. This is not useless in establishing notability. SmackoVector (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Independent#Conflicts_of_interest, "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting. However, less direct interests can be harder to see and more subjective to establish. For example, much scientific research is often funded by companies with an interest in the outcome of the experiments, and such research makes its way into peer-reviewed journals. Journals themselves can also have conflicts of interest due to their funding sources. Caution must be used in accepting sources as independent." (emphasis added) Rex Conn and JP Software have the most obvious conflict of interest one might imagine: He wants people to buy his product not this other one (if you were even considering it). He is thus not independent. You can't use this source to establish notability. There are just too many things wrong with it. Msnicki (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline is for the subject. The subject is FireCMD. JPSoft and Rex Conn does not have an interest in promoting FireCMD and are independent. SmackoVector (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does it take to get this across? Conn has a financial interest in publicizing that his product is better than FireCMD. That's the only reason he's writing anything about FireCMD. It's the same reason he's written blog posts trashing ALL his competitors, no matter how obscure. This is absolutely, positively NOT like CNET publishing an actual article about either of these products, which, btw, has about zero probability of ever happening. Msnicki (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone in the world who are in business have some financial interest. Even CNET write reviews because of financial interest. Even if Conn has a financial interest the fact is he wrote about FireCMD because he found it notable. He found that people are searching for it. This type of software doesn't get much coverage in mainstream publications as Michael Bednarek said but it shouldn't lead to the deletion of article. Wikipedia also advises to use some common sense while following the guidelines. I think there is no point in debating anymore. Goodbye. SmackoVector (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But CNET is a legitimate and respected news source owned by CBS Corporation, which has a reputation for fact-checking and fair reporting. They make money doing it but not because they have a financial interest in the stories they report. This is so basic, we do agree on one thing: There is no point is arguing this with you. You will never give up, no matter how obviously wrong. Msnicki (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if you provided a WP:RS for some of your essential points. Start with one (preferably several) for Take Command Console as the "leading product", etc., as support for the followup assertions. TEDickey (talk) 14:12, 24 August 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. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piramal Group

[edit]
Piramal Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is spam masquerading as an article. The subject may be notable but this text doesn't do it justice at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 09:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 18:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is bad enough that G11 might apply. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Piramal Enterprises Ltd is one of the subsidiaries/divisions of the Piramal Group. We should look through the entire corporate "family tree" to check for similarly problematic ariticles about subsidiaries/divisions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:05, 26 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hart

[edit]
Erin Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. Claims of actual awards have not been verified, and being short-listed for various awards doesn't quite make the mark for WP:AUTHOR. No indications of any significant coverage other than the "local interest" piece that is provided as the sole reference for this autobiography. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article has been revised to show verification of awards. Still not clear that the awards won (Romantic Times Reviewers' Choice or Friends of American Writers Award) amount to "significant critical attention". I'll defer to others more knowledgeable of the book trade. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep though I can't spot any online reviews of her (minor) award winning 2003 book, Haunted Ground , there are several for her most recent 2013 book The Book of Killowen [10] [11] [12]. This suggests to me she will at least scrape over the notability threshold of WP:AUTHOR (and that there are likely to be other offline(?) coverage of her earlier works). Sionk (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple reviews. Her book Haunted Ground was reviewed in: New York Times, Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist, Book-of-the-month Club, and many more. Lake of Sorrows was reviewed in New York Times, Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist and many more. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:48, 23 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Munnai Singh

[edit]
Munnai Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. reason was "This is an essay and original research, not a Wikipedia article." Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:42, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Grote

[edit]
Dick Grote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an autobiography with only primary sources and dubious notability. Supported PROD was removed by a new editor whose only edit was removing that PROD.Mdtemp (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in fact there is an argument for speedy deleting it as a copy-paste of Grote's About Dick Grote webpage! Basically this is a copy-pasted CV of a successful professional, but not someone who meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I can't see anything that convinces me any of his books are "management classics" or "highly popular". Sionk (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This reads like a vanity piece,with statements like-Grote is the rare management consultant who has been engaged by a labor union. Also could not find sources for most of the claims in the article. BeckiGreen (talk) 03:03, 23 August 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 snow keep. Article is now cited, satisfying the only reason for deletion given. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Hobbs

[edit]
Eddie Hobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cites no sources. theonesean 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is notable in many different areas, has received lots of coverage. While admittedly a poorly written article, 8 years old and not a single reference, Hobbs is a well known celebrity financial advisor, consumer advocate, newspaper columnist, television and radio presenter, and published author. Anyone living in Ireland knows that, anyone living elsewhere could have used a search engine. IMHO User:Theonesean's time would have been better spent on improving the article by adding references rather nominating it for deletion. Snappy (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable. The article also has references now. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets all requirements as far as I can see. RashersTierney (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known Irish economist who frequently appears on national television & the article is now referenced. Finnegas (talk) 18:39, 24 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bunting (musician)

[edit]
Craig Bunting (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article for a non-notiable musician in and band of dubious noteriaty, it appears to just be fancruft. fails WP:NMUSIC CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 August 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) 01:27, 22 August 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#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heah Joo Seang

[edit]
Heah Joo Seang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel this is too promotional to be here, but I want to make sure the person isn't notable enough to stay with some clean-up. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have confined myself to facts rather than opinions. If you identify a particular point/item or particular points/items and let me know why you think that item or those items in each case are too promotional, I would be happy to expand on them in order to prove that they are not. For the entry, I have mainly used contemporaneous sources i.e. newspaper articles of events at the time they occurred. However, here are a list of books, papers etc that you may refer to to get more information on this person:

On his actions which some have interpreted as nationalistic and protecting the rights of Straits Chinese/Peranakans and others, but which other saw as anti-government, sedition and promoting the removal of Penang, Malacca and Singapore from the Federation of Malaya and reconstituting them into their earlier state viz The Straits Settlements, Crown Colonies:

  • Christie, C.J. (2000) A Modern History of Southeast Asia: Decolonization, Nationalis, and Separatism. London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. pp.37-39, 43
  • Chua, A.L. (2008) 'Imperial Subjects, Straits Citizens: Anglophone Asians and the Struggle for Political Rights in Inter-War Singapore' in Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore, edited by Professors Michael D. Barr and Carl A. Trocki. Singapore: NUS Press. pp.22-23, 34-35
  • Koh T.A. (1992) 'Literature in English by the Chinese' in Chinese Adaptation and Diversity: Essays on Society and Literature in Indonesia, Malaysia & Singapore edited by Prof. Dr. Leo Suryadinata. Singapore: Singapore University Press. p.162-163
  • Ooi K.G. (2009) Historical Dictionary of Malaysia. Scarecrow Press Inc. p.248.
  • Ooi, K.G. (2009) The A to Z of Malaysia. Scarecrow Press Inc. p.248.
  • Kratoska, P.H. (1998) The Japanese Occupation of Malaya 1941-1945. London: C. Hurst & Co. p.101.
  • Mohamed Noordin Sopiee (2005) From Malayan Union to Singapore Separation: Political Unification in the Malaysia Region, 1945-65. Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya Press. pp.72-73, 90.

Mainly to do with his involvement in the Malayan Rubber Industry:

  • Mako, Y. (2008) 'Japan's Economic Policy for Occupied Malaya' in New Perspectives on the Japanese Occupation in Malaya and Singapore, 1941-1945 edited by Yōji Akashi, Mako Yoshimura. p.133
  • Saravanamuthu M. (2010) The Sara Saga Penang: Acrea Books. pp.85-86 (Originally published in 1970 by Cathay Printers).
  • Yoshihara, Kunio (1988) The Rise of Erstaz Capitalism in South-East Asia. Oxford University Press. p.204.

General biographical entries on Heah Joo Seang:

  • Tan, K.H. (2007) The Chinese in Penang: A Pictorial History. Penang: Acrea Books. p.111.
  • Lee, K.H. and Chow, M.S. (1997) Biogra(2007) Biographical Dictionary of the Chinese in Malaysia. Selangor: Pelanduk Publication. pp.50-51
  • Historical Personalities of Penang (1986). Penang: Phoenix Press. p.67.

Actually, I am not sure what to give you until you point out the problem parts and why you think they are problematic, otherwise your challenge is vague and sweeping. Heah Joo Seang is considered notable in Malaysia and there is even a road named after him in Penang. The following search "Heah Joo Seang" site:.gov.my will show you that he turns up on Malaysian Government sites particularly - The Attorney General's Chambers, The Penang Museum and the National Archives of Malaysia.

When he was first nominated for Municipal Commissioner - this was way back in 1932 - the newspaper wrote, "The Straits Chinese British Association ballot to select the candidate to be put before the Governor for nomination to the Municipal Commission, which has been keenly looked forward to in view of the fact that the sitting member is being opposed, for the first time, by another candidate in the person of Mr. Heah Joo Seang, opened today in the presence of a committee. The voting resulted in Mr. Heah Joo Seang's favour by a majority of 21 over Mr. Lim Eow Thoon who secured 138 votes to Mr. Heah Joo Seang's 159. Mr. Heah Joo Seang is president of the S.C.B.A., and Mr. Lim Eow Thoon is a past president. Mr. Heah Joo Seang, when he assumes office, will be the youngest Municipal Commissioner. He is the head of one of the biggest rubber firms in Malaya, Hin Giap and Co. and his rise has been meteoric. He is founder of the Penang Wembley Trade Amusement Park." [The Straits Times, 9 December 1932, Page 12]

If you go to Google Scholar and do a search on him you will see the papers in which he is mentioned http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Heah+Joo+Seang%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= to wit:

  • [CITATION] The Singapore rubber market

J Wilson - 1958 - Eastern Universities Press Cited by 11 Related articles Cite

  • [CITATION] Koh Sin Hock

TANS INN - Malaysia in History, 1980 - Malaysian Historical Society. Cite

  • [CITATION] BAJA DEDAUN

F FERTILIZER - The Planter - Incorporated Society of Planters Cite

  • [CITATION] Slug and Nettle Caterpillars.

PAC Ooi - The Planter - Incorporated Society of Planters Cite

  • [CITATION] An Ambassador Par Excellence: Tun Omar Yoke-Lin's Years in Washington, 1962-1973

C Jeshurun - The Journal of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, 2007 Cited by 1 Related articles Cite

  • [CITATION] Report on the Conference on Community Development: Held at the Tunku Abdul Rahman Hall, Kuala Lumpur, on 20th and 22nd September 1958

Malaya - 1958 - GA Smith, Government Printer Cite

  • Nation, Race, and Language: Discussing transnational identities in colonial Singapore, circa 1930

CA Lin - Modern Asian Studies, 2012 - Cambridge Univ Press ... One of the society's trustees, Heah Joo Seang, described its members as, 'Leaders of thought, lovers of truth, champions of the cause of justice, democracy and liberty': see Malaya Tribune, 14 December 1940, p. 6. 16 Colonial Office (CO) file series CO 273/606/50055/3 ... Related articles All 2 versions Cite

  • [CITATION] Annual Report-Malayan Agricultural Producers Association

Malayan Agricultural Producers Association - 1979 - Malayan Agricultural Producers … Cite

  • The Penang Secession Movement, 1948-1951

MN Sopiee - Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 1973 - Cambridge Univ Press ... Malayan citizenship." 4 Some also wanted no other citizenship. Heah Joo Seang, a former president of the Penang Straits Chinese British Association put the matter strongly. He wrote: "The Straits Chinese of Malacca and Penang ... Cited by 1 Related articles All 3 versions Cite [PDF] from unirazak.edu.my

  • [PDF] Malaysia and the Consociational Option: Is there a Path Dependent Logic?

A Noh - unirazak.edu.my ... Chinese business interests in Penang, who refused to give up their British citizenship and take on Malayan citizenship. Heah Joo Seang, who at the time headed Penang's Straits Chinese Business Association (SCBA), remarked “I ... Related articles Cite More [PDF] from usm.my

  • [PDF] Penang Shimbun Vol III No 307 December 23 2604 (23 December 1944).

P Shimbun - 1944 - eprints.usm.my Page 1. .. - • tall I{oiso Foe Medium-sized ransport Sunk Pl R\SE, Dec. 22;- The Nippon Ai.r Force, includinli special attack cvrp:-, ~i.ta.l·kea en","'u)j warcraft and transport~ off an Jos(', Mindoro J land. on Uee. 20 and instantan ... Cite More

  • [PDF] Japan and Malaysian Economy; An Analysis of the Relations Started with Reparations after the End of World War II

H Fujio - Formation and Restructuring of Business Groups in … - d-arch.ide.go.jp Page 1. CHAPTER 6 Japan and Malaysian Economy; An Analysis of the Relations Started with Reparations after the End of World War II Hara Fujio 1. Objectives of this Study In the last decade, the Japanese Government has ... Cited by 1 Related articles All 2 versions Cite Malaysia: Immigration and the growth of a plural society KK Kim - Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic …, 1998 - JSTOR Page 1. MALAYSIA: IMMIGRATION AND THE GROWTH OF A PLURAL SOCIETY* by KHOO KAY KIM Introduction Malaysia population country has has structure experienced long been not cited in only modern as reflects an times, example the but extraordinary has of had ... Cited by 9 Related articles All 2 versions Cite [PDF] from bupedu.com

  • The Evolution of Chinese Malaysian Entrepreneurship: From British Colonial Rule to Post-New Economic Policy

CY Whah - Journal of Chinese Overseas, 2008 - muse.jhu.edu ... 1982: 149). In the 1950s, there were a number of sizable Chinese rubber estates: Unitac Ltd, Lee Rubber Estates Ltd., Ko Rubber Plantations Ltd., and Heah Joo Seang Rubber Estates Ltd (Puthucheary 1979: 127). In 1956 ... Cited by 2 Related articles All 3 versions Cite

Perhaps if you read Chinese you could do a Google search using "连裕祥" and use Translate to understand more about this man who was esteemed by the Chinese-speaking community.

However most of what exists on Heah Joo Seang is in the books published that talk about our early 20th century economic and political development and our rubber trade and those are not accessible on the internet but via the libraries at our universities - I use the University of Malaya which is nearest where I live and our national archives (Arkib Negara Malaysia) which is also near where I live.

jefferyseow (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also just added this to his entry to help support the proposition that he indeed was a notable person:

Crowds swelling to well over 50,000 lined an eight-mile route today for the funeral of the late Mr. Heah Joo Seang, millionaire rubber magnate and Penang MCA President, whose body was flown home last week from London where he died on May 14. The two-mile procession in which 15 associations and 12 schools took part, was the longest seen in Penang for many years. 5,000 people. Three Cabinet Ministers together with the Governor of Penang, Raja Tun Uda Al-Haj, and the Chief Minister, Inche Aziz Ibrahim, were among the 5,000 people who followed the hearse on its last journey. Early arrivals were Tun Leong Yew Koh, Minister of Justice, Mr. Tan Siew Sin, Minister of Finance and National President of the MCA, Dato Ong Yoke Lin, Minister of Health and Social Welfare, and Mr. Cheah Theam Swee, assistant Minister of Commerce and Industry. The Prime Minister, Tengku Abdul Rahman, the Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, and the Governor, Raja Tun Uda Al-Haj, were among those who sent wreaths. Crowds started to gather from an early hour. Before the procession lined up, the coffin was taken out of the Heah mansion, Goodwood, in Macalister Road, and laid on the lawn where representatives of various schools and organisations paid their last respects to the late Mr. Heah. Mr. Yeo Hui Tung, a leader of the Teochew community, then read out an eulogy. Although timed to start at 11.30 a.m., the procession could not get moving until 12.15 p.m. Led by Senator Cheah Seng Khim and other members of the funeral committee, it proceeded along Macalister Road to the Church of Seven Sorrows where the first stage of the procession broke up. 'Last look.' It re-assembled later in front of the Teochew Association at Chulia Street and made its way to Beach Street to give the late Mr. Heah a "last look" at his office, Hock Lye Co., Ltd. The hearse, followed by 200 cars, then proceeded to Mount Erskine Cemetery where the burial took place at 5. p.m. after full Buddhist rites. Three school bands---St. Xavier's corps of drums and the Han Chiang and Jit Sin High School bands--marched with the procession. Among the 15 political parties, local guilds and associations which took part were UMNO and MCA youths, MCA women, UMNO and MIC members, the Teochew Hoay Kuan, the Kwangtung and Tengchow Associations, the Chiense Chamber of Commerce and the Penang Rubber Trade Association. Flags of various clubs and associations with which the late Mr. Heah was actively connected flew their flags at half-mast today.

Source: The Straits Times, 28 May 1962, Page 18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyseow (talk • contribs) 04:26, 16 August 2013(UTC)

Keep. As former president of the Badminton Association of Malaysia notable. --Florentyna (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clean-up appears to have worked. I'll vote to let it stay now.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. You have no idea what you are talking about Jeremy. I've seen your own entries. 3 citations and that's what you consider notable (facepalm). Duh! What in the clean up suddenly made this person whom you thought was un-notable, notable? What made the promotional suddenly not promotional? Double facepalm duh. Clean up worked? Yeah, right! jefferyseow (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Tiger, let's try to keep this discussion respectful. From what I've seen of the discussion here and the content and sources in the article it appears he was a very prominent business leader as well as a politician. Can you please be specific about why you think the article is promotional or why his career isn't worth including? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:33, 22 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As former president of the Badminton Association of Malaysia clearly relevant. For me it is more a thing of quality control of the article than an afd case. --Florentyna (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck your second "keep" as a duplicate of above czar · · 02:42, 30 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vamps

[edit]
The Vamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. New band with their first album yet to be released. ErikvanB (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – I personally believe this deletion should be relisted at least a month later because you really don't know how they're going to do with their new single "Can We Dance". The EP was #1 on the UK iTunes Charts yesterday. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsdayer520, I did Google the Vamps and all I could find we're a bunch of fan sites, which are not really good sources. So I most certainly made a good faith effort. The Vamps are only playing for Selena Gomez for two nights. The Vamps are supposedly releasing an EP at the end of September, and supposedly releasing an album sometime next year. Last night I couldn't find any sources that were reliable about their upcoming EP and album. I thought the users who want to keep the page were the ones who have to show proof of notability? Since I did look for sources for the Vamps, what did you do Doomsdayer520, besides vote keep? BeckiGreen (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the ten online journalistic articles located by Michig who apparently knows how to search fully and found a few more online articles of my own though they didn't add much to Michig's pile. I found those articles, and Michig's previous vote, to be convincing evidence of enough notability to merit an article (however thin it may be) per long-standing WP policy, and voted accordingly. Sorry about the accusation of no good-faith effort on your part, but that concern definitely still holds true for the nominator per WP:BEFORE. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Above "sources" include 4 from the very same website, couple are announcements, and one is a copy from another website that was already listed. I also think it's telling from in the articles, that they attracted "hundreds" people, that in and of itself shows the band is not very notable yet. Might they go places? Sure, but for Wiki this is WP:TOOSOON and they lack notability. Caffeyw (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per some (but not all) sources found by Michig and Doomsdayer520, other hits found by searching for "the vamps" chart single, and by this which confirms they hit #1 on the UK iTunes download chart, which I interpret as being a valid (though not brilliant) chart for criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC via WP:SINGLEVENDOR "some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer ... can be included if no other suitable charts can be located." Also they're on the Billboard "Next Big Sound" chart here. Not superb coverage, but I think there's enough to be notable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 28 August 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. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaya (programming language)

[edit]
Kaya (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable programming language. No relevant hits to independent reliable sources in google, google books, or google scholar. No notable applications. Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:35, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Man Kam

[edit]
Lo Man Kam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Most of the article deals with his relationship to Yip Man but notability is not inherited. Jakejr (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is a grandmaster of a branch, not just any instructor. Article can easily be rewritten to give less attention to relationship with Yip Man and more attention to his own accomplishmentsAeontech (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep he has published several books on his philosophy about Wing Chun and martial arts (edit to add link to the book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Police-Kung-Fu-Man-Kam/dp/0804832714/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377094726&sr=8-1&keywords=lo+man+kam) and is well known at Wing Chun schools of different lineages as well for his focus on technique and relaxation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:981:6B86:1:48BE:D19:25D4:9893 (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — 2001:981:6B86:1:48BE:D19:25D4:9893 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*Keep He is an important part of Wing Chun History and should be kept on Wikipedia out of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.155.35 (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — 59.167.155.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*Keep Apart from the myriad articles about and interviews with Lo Man Kam on the internet and on worldwide television and print media, there have also been documentaries, such as the one on National Geographic. Lo Man Kam is also a repeated medalist, and internationally famous. Lo Man Kam has followers and admirers in Europe, Asia and North America. His significant place in Wing Chun history and in the legacy of a certain style is well-known and is well-documented.Redpath1983 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Redpath1983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment It looks like the consensus will eventually be Keep but the article needs a little bit of effort to show his notability. The emphasis in the lead paragraph and most of the body is on his relationship to Yip Man - he is not notable because of that. A re-write of parts with references is in order. I would also remove some of the Yip Man only text as that is covered elsewhere and detracts from the focus.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Took a stab at it - inclusions of references still a problem.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep How on earth can you even be considering removing such an important historical figure in the art of wingchun??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.179.68 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — 140.198.179.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I agree with the previous input, you should keep this article. GM Lo Man Kam been practising and teaching Wing Chun for manny years, and is a true Grandmaster in his own lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.106.24 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — 79.138.106.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The fact that he's a grandmaster is not sufficient to show notability--many 10th dans have had articles removed. However, in this case there seems to be plenty of coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG. The article needs to be rewritten and trimmed, but those aren't grounds for deletion. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 21 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 22 August 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 deleted by User:Starblind per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adult games

[edit]
Adult games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research top to toe Fiddle Faddle 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed, too late, that it is a spam page for a particular dating site. I've flagged it for speedy deletion (too). Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 22 August 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. Withdrawn by nominator. — Gwalla | Talk 01:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srđan Šaper

[edit]
Srđan Šaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

poorly sourced article full of promo and puffery. He might be notable, but this article is beyond rescue so WP:TNT should be applied The Banner talk 14:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I broadly agree with the sentiment of WP:TNT, I must stress that it is just an essay, not a policy. The man is obviously notable. Even if we take it at face value, it says that " if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) [...], then delete the content ". Now, browsing a bit through history, we can find some quite decent (if under-referenced) versions, like this. Most of the puffery seems to be added by Anja Kosanovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly in this batch [23]. So, let us just revert to a 2010 version, and take it on from here. No such user (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As pointed out above, there are versions in the article history which can be used in place of the promotional mess that is the current version. TNT need not be applied with history available for reversion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 23 August 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 per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of previously deleted article). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norabadi

[edit]
Norabadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been removed before (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nosratallah_Khakian, due to lack of notability. Author contested delete in talk page and an IP with no edits removed template without explaining why. Ξnvelope Salad {TC} 14:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIn the absence of sources or any sign of actual notability StuartDouglas (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to prominent articles and academic sources

[edit]

Karbram Hello! Wikipedia has an article on the merits, as the owner of a prominent academic and reputable sources. Thank you.2.179.161.184 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 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. SNOW close. Putting aside the bad faith allegations - it's clear that notability has been met by the snow !votes. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Basa

[edit]
David Basa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It fails WP:GNG and the WP:NFOOTBALL, and also it is too short for an article here, not much of referencing either. FairyTailRocks (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After snooping around, it seems that the nominator removed any trace of Basa being in the Philippine squad for the 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (see below). That's, at the very least, sneaky. –HTD 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:30, 22 August 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 Deleted as WP:CSD#G3 by Ponyo (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debanjan Deb

[edit]
Debanjan Deb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, despite all the sources listed (all of which go to the main page of the source and do not mention the subject of the article). No GHits other than social media, no GNews hits. Possible hoax. GregJackP Boomer! 11:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:50, 22 August 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 Unitrans. Consider bundling similar lots in the future. See first AfD of lot for precedent. (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT3572

[edit]
Unitrans RT3572 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Note as previous AFD. Tom the Tomato Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:08, 22 August 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. No prejudice against redirecting  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le teorie di Adam Kadmon

[edit]
Le teorie di Adam Kadmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A segment of the paranormal TV show Mistero which was deleted via AfD a few months ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistero. Fails WP:GNG. Cavarrone 07:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:14, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jeruma-Grinberga

[edit]
Jana Jeruma-Grinberga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any news articles from the Google God that would show notability. Seems to be a bit of presumed notability due to a title. Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability difficult to establish. Further, it has been created, I think, in bad faith by someone with an axe to grind. Have a look at their contributions and in particular at the blog link they wanted to add to Lutheran Church in Great Britain. It's just an attack on this woman. This encyclopaedia should be an encyclopaedia, not a repository for someone wishing to leverage their personal, external campaign. DBaK (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Lutheran Church is a minnow in UK, but I would have thought that its senior leaders (such as the subject) were notable, but I would prefer to see more context. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted in the article cited in the Wikipedia article, the Lutheran Church in the UK is small. But this is the first woman Bishop in UK history and it's been covered as such for its significance not just within the Lutheran sphere, but with respect to the Catholic and Protestant churches as well. The article cited in the article covers her and the appointment substantially. I'm not seeing any issue here and I think this subject is a strong keep of obvious historical import. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Candleabracadabra, she's also received significant coverage in Telegraph article. I can't see how this is has been deemed an attack page. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's possibly because you have not read or understood what I wrote. You need to look at the history a bit to see what is going on and what the user LutheranFacts (obviously a username denoting a massive lack of bias or mission, right?) is actually up to. Having said that, I have no strong feeling that it absolutely must go, but please bear in mind that if you keep the article you may well have to keep an eye on it, and the antics of her detractor(s), to avoid BLP issues. But, seriously, if you don't understand it don't comment on it. I don't have the time to spare for this so I am unwatching this page and wish you well in your endeavours. Happy editing. DBaK (talk) 09:55, 23 August 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 G4, A7, take your pick -- Y not? 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barstool Sports

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Barstool Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable web content. There aren't multiple independent sources which cover the website to a non-trivial extent. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree thoroughly. Barstool Sports is in the top 5,000 sites worldwide, and is a noted sports blog, having been featured multiple times on 20/20, Inside Edition, sportscenter. It additionally holds parties that have created stateside buzz for now worldwide acts such as Mac Miller and avicii. That said, the current entry needs a massive amount of work. -TMcCarthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.58.4 (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see there was an AfD and conclusion to delete in 2009 as well. I doesn't look like anything significant has changed since then. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me a day, I am planning on making this article full of enough sourced content. I do not think it should be deleted. This is a huge blog on the internet, especially among college students and the New England area, and it receives a lot of press. I can list multiple sources which have covered the activities and people behind the blog. 24.60.119.82 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYPE

[edit]
DYPE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I made an under investigation on this article. I visit the area of Dumaguete City, and I confirmed that this station is not existed. Also ABS-CBN didn't announced anything regards to this so it's clearly a hoax. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 06:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:06, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DWNP

[edit]
DWNP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I made an under investigation on this article. I visit the area of Batangas, and I confirmed that this station is not existed. Also ABS-CBN didn't announced anything regards to this so it's clearly a hoax. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 06:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go off the air - I am from Batangas City, and I can confirm that we have a local affiliate of ABS-CBN (the channel) based here. However, there is no such radio station with the frequency 92.7 (the most popular here are Bay Radio 104.7, Spirit FM 99.1, 99.9 and 91.9), and if there was, I would be listening to it and it would be rather popular, considering it would be an ABS affiliate. I would have opted for a speedy deletion as G3, but since the article's been around for a while, it's not a blatant enough hoax. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, leaning towards WP:CSD#G3. Google searches link to Botswana water development links (completely unrelated), and none mentioning the station itself. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article appears to be a hoax. Andrew327 13:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In order to verify if the station existed, I tuned in to 92.7 FM yesterday. A station with that frequency does exist, however the sound quality was a little poor, which generally indicates the station is not from the local area; in fact, just now, I looked up 92.7, and my search suggests that a station with that frequency is actually based in Lucena, Quezon, although it could be a different station since the program I heard yesterday had the radio anchors mostly reporting about news, like most Filipino AM stations (I did not listen long enough to verify the name of the station I listened to or from where it's based). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:43, 24 August 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. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeodynamic agriculture

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Homeodynamic agriculture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in high-quality secondary sources to establish notability Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 23 August 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. as a copyright violation —SpacemanSpiff 07:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TechLogic Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

[edit]
TechLogic Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails notability, the whole page sounds promotional. Does not meet WP:NCORP, has no references. Did a web search on this company and comes back with no importance. Author keeps removing CSD A7 tag. EuroCarGT 04:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:52, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Studios - Stage 15

[edit]
Warner Bros. Studios - Stage 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable studio stage. Tinton5 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete unsourced article, then Redirect title to Warner Bros. Studios and, as this appears a sourcable topic, a new section can then be created section at Warner Bros. Studios covering their historically documentable facilities. And yes, the current unsourced list article may then be deleted. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced trivia, with no context or history provided. At first I favored the idea of a redirect/merge, but the current Warner Bros. Studios article does not mention individual stages or specify what features were filmed on which stages, and there is nothing to indicate why anyone should care. And a redirect seems pointless, since anyone seeking information about this stage will find the Warner Bros. Studios article without needing any help from a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that a merge of unsourced trivia is not sensible, but I think the various Warner stages might easily be written of in some manner and sourced at the suggested target after a deletion,[24][25][26] hence my "redirect" of a searchable term to send readers to where it makes sense that such might be discussed in context.Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:28, 23 August 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. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AWF Australasian Championship

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
AWF Australasian Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This title is not notable, owned by a promotion that has already been ruled not notable via AfD. If the promotion is not notable, then the title can not possibly be notable. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to add that the AfD mentioned above is here 58.164.105.136 (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:26, 22 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweethearts (music group)

[edit]
Sweethearts (music group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Granted - it was part of a documentary on a television station, however, that's it. There's no further coverage on them, and there's no other claim to notability that lies within WP:BAND. Even the documentary itself (more like an interview) doesn't pass BAND. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Gong show 04:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the The Age article and the TV series already on the page is Honeysett, Stuart (22 March 1997), "Jazz girls blow up a storm", The Australian and lots of local coverage like Linley, Margaret (22 March 1997), "Girls on tour Band stars in reality TV", The Echo - Linley, Margaret (12 September 2012), "TV focus on band `daunting'", Geelong Advertiser - "Jazz girls blow up a storm", The Echo, 19 August 2004. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm the author of this article and will readily admit to being a newby. I have today added some further references, trying to restrain myself from going over the top with quantity. Hopefully, I will be able to respond to the concerns of the contributors to this discussion, filling any gaps in the requirements for acceptance of articles. If the subject matter 'passes' I be looking to expand the article.Cairnsbythesea (talk) 15:47, 23 August 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 Geordie (band).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powerhouse (rock band)

[edit]
Powerhouse (rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A group that seems to fail WP:BAND. One trivial album, only active for two years. Most of the vocalists don't even have pages. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gong show 04:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Gong show 04:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Geordie (band). Three of the four members were in the final lineup of Geordie, and Martin C. Strong in The Great Metal Discography has this as a footnote to the Geordie entry: "...the group releasing one more self-titled album under the POWERHOUSE moniker". --Michig (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with documenting the Powerhouse band and history, but there isn't enough to justify a separate article. If this being mentioned in the Geordie article pisses off the Geordie fans, well, tough. --Michig (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I'll get busy and add Powerhouse as Geordies last album then ?????? fine..John kirk (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the voalists don't even have pages." This is a really odd choice of words.... what sort of voalist pages would you expect to see ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John kirk (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Keep As per request above/merge... Powerhouse identified as a re-brand of the band Geordie, as such , this would be their final album together... So... Geordie Albums section corrected to reflect this revelation... As all Geordie albums have their own page, so then should this entry.. A entry which, as it stands as now, is concise and encyclopaedic as are the other Geordie Album entries. John kirk (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Geordie (band), as Michig suggests. There isn't enough information available to warrant a standalone article. — sparklism hey! 10:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge Keep Merge .... It has been done. But in order for the merge to make sense (as the Geordie entry has now been edited) this page has to stay (or be renamed to 'Powerhouse Band and Album formally Geordie' or something similar as it has been highlighted as Geordie album... You can't just deny its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John kirk (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Geordie. Adequately covered there. And it's the same band under a different name according to allmusic and the source Michig uses. As a separate unit powerhouse does not pass WP:music 6 as none of the members are independently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:52, 30 August 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. I am closing this early per the WP:SNOW results, the serious WP:BLP concerns (which have not been rebutted and in fact were reinforced by some comments), and the fact that at least part of the article falls under WP:CSD#G4. I can't see any benefit in keeping info that several have argued violates BLP, something we must take seriously, for even a few more days just to be sure we reach 7 days. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada

[edit]
List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Back in June, the AFD for Brian Whitlock and the AFD for Jordan Dale Lucas were closed overwhelmingly as delete. As stated by User: Bearcat,

"As sad as acts of animal cruelty may be, they're not in and of themselves sufficient to make a person notable enough to be permanently included in an encyclopedia, except in extraordinary circumstances which I don't see being claimed here. Public shaming of criminals is not what we're here for."

The user who created these articles and strongest advocate for their existence during the AfD stated he would keep them on the encyclopedia by copying and pasting them into this current article. While this in theory covers the BLP1E issues raised in the AfD, it is entirely against the consensus and conclusions decided. The cases listed in these articles are not notable cases, but rather simply attempts to include potentially BLP violating information previously ruled unfit for the encyclopedia. Now, if this were to be revamped to consist only of cases that would be considered more notable/significant it would be a different story, but for all I know those don't even exist (maybe they do). As of now, this is equivalent of List of Australian criminals including only local bank heists, grocery store robberies, and carjackings to shame specific people. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I should probably point to WP:NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS discusses the encylopedia as a whole and how to distinguish between minor and noteworthy news stories. The principle is still violated by an article whose purpose seems to be to collect NOTNEWS failing stories into one place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the nominator's statement rings true based on the genesis of this article which was basically a cut-paste combination of the two articles deleted by community consensus only three days earlier. This is basically a matter of G4 via different means and is pretty poor form. The handful of minor cases added since to make this article more substantive isn't convincing. This is just a way to sidestep WP:BLP1E by WP:SYNTH'ing unrelated cases together to form an article. Delete this and trout/reprimand the creator. Stalwart111 04:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a WP:COATRACK for a lot of non-notable news stories. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, just one minor quibble; this format actually doesn't resolve the WP:BLP1E issues that pertained to the separate articles. Rather, BLP rules including BLP1E are still applicable here, because we're giving information about living people in the article and not just naming them in the context of a narrative depiction of an overall story — Iists of smooshed-together biographies of non-notable people are still biographies of non-notable people no matter what the article's title is or isn't. That said, my argument in the earlier discussions still applies (and thanks to nom for the citation!): no matter how appalling these people's actions may be, Wikipedia does not exist as the public shaming wall for every last dumbass who happens to commit a crime, and no evidence has been presented that any of these people, or their acts of animal cruelty, have attained sufficient notability to warrant being highlighted in an international encyclopedia for what could potentially be forever. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hello, I am the author of the article. A list or annotated list is allowed at Wikipedia. Each item on the list is notable with several citations from internationally recognized third-party reliable sources. This article should be kept and expanded not deleted. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your "list" is just a compilation of material previously deleted by community consensus and this "article" is just the result of you not liking those results. Take your list-of-deleted-content idea to WP:DRV is see what people have to say there. Stalwart111 12:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. WP:BLP and all of its subclauses, including BLP1E, applies to any article, regardless of its title, that contains information about living people at all. It doesn't matter whether the information is sitting in a standalone bio or a subsection of a list — if it contains any information about a living person at all, it's still subject to all the BLP rules. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* Yes, WP:BLP as a whole applies everywhere. But WP:BLP1E is the subsection of that policy that specifically applies to the existence of an independent article for people of low notability and known only for one event. That's what it forbids. It explicitly encourages merging the information in a parent article: " In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.". Regardless of the destiny of this specific article, it would be nice if policies are quoted and understood correctly and not merely handwaved. See WP:CRYBLP.--cyclopiaspeak! 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP1E does not only apply to independent articles. This is not an article about a specific event in which these six people all had defined, verifiable roles; it's just a list of non-notable BLPs made over in unconvincing "but it's a list of events!" drag that does not satisfy the specific conditions under which you are allowed to include information about BLP1E's in Wikipedia. (You might want, for starters, to think very carefully about the rather big difference between "article about an event" and "list of (unrelated) events".) Any information at all about a living person still has to pass BLP1E conditions: you cannot, for instance, get around them just by merging the exact same information into a list of unrelated non-notable incidents instead of six separate unrelated non-notable biographies. Any information about a living person still has to meet all of WP:BLP, including 1E, no matter what article it's in — even where mentioning a person in an event article does satisfy BLP1E, that policy still covers what type of content the event's article is or isn't allowed to contain about the person. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that BLP1E applies to something else than independent biographical articles, and also I disagree a list of events is akin to a list of BLPs. You are conflating "BLP, broadly meaning, applies to every part of WP" (true) with the fact that there is a section of BLPs that talks about a certain type of articles. However thank you for clarifying your position. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in BLP1E states or even implies that it only applies to one particular type of article; rather, it governs what we can and cannot write about people who fall under BLP1E in any article to which any content at all about a BLP1E could possibly be added. No matter what the article's title is, BLP1E still applies, still places specific limits on what you can or cannot do with the information. For instance, even if you tried to add information about Jordan Dale Lucas directly to cat on the grounds that that's the type of animal he was convicted of cruelty toward, BLP1E would suddenly be applicable directly to cat as long as that information was present in the article — and even if you give the article a title that calls it a list of events instead of a list of people, the content is still about the people. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing? BLP1E states: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:[...] - which is pretty clear wording that it is about the suitability of a stand-alone bio: no more, no less. And in fact many BLP1E articles have been preserved, by converting them in articles about the event, trimming the biographical information that is not related to the event, and so on: exactly what BLP1E itself advices to do. About your example: the information would not be added to cat because of WP:UNDUE, mostly, certainly not because of BLP1E. If there are further doubts, I suggest BLP/N or WT:BLP as venues, instead of this AfD. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That quote certainly precludes standalone articles about BLP1Es, I won't (and didn't) argue with that. But it doesn't contain even one word which limits BLP1E as only being applicable to standalone bios. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: given the WP:BLP policy issues raised during discussions at the previous AfD's for the Whitlock and Lucas articles, I have asked for input on this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a BLP nightmare. GiantSnowman 14:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, previous deletions of the individual articles about the persons per WP:BLP1E made sense. Conversely an article on the events is instead perfectly allowed and allowable. In fact, WP:BLP1E explicitly says: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - This is exactly what has been done here: even better, instead of having single event articles of dubious individual notability, a stronger list has been made. Therefore it is absolutely misleading and improper to refer of the deletion of the individual entries: information which is not suited to its own article can be instead be destinated to a comprehensive, larger article (per WP:PRESERVE as well). I agree entries should be trimmed, but this is a mere editing issue. So far everything seems fairly sourced, so I see no serious WP:BLP issue here. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely they are, but they are not subject to BLP1E. This is an article about the events. I understand this is going to be a snow delete, but I'm perplexed about the way policy is twisted here. --cyclopiaspeak! 07:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are still subject to BLP1E. This is not an article about a single event in which these people played properly sourced roles within a narrative depiction of that single event — it's just a list of discrete, unrelated events whose only substantive content is formerly four, now suddenly six smooshed-together BLPs. If, say, instead of animal cruelty charges these people were being discussed for their roles in the 2012 Burlington VIA derailment, their names could be mentioned in context within that article — but you would still be violating BLP1E if you added personal information about their private lives outside of the event itself, or if you created a separate non-narrative List of people involved in the 2012 Burlington VIA derailment to get around the fact that you could neither add personal information to the main article nor spin off separate standalone biographies. It's the content, not the title, that constitutes the difference between whether an article is about "events" or "people" — and the content here is still six distinct BLP1E sketches of unrelated people who are still not notable enough for Wikipedia to have any information about at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per Andy's comment at the rescue list:
"Note that this list consists largely of two articles previously deleted by overwhelming consensus on grounds of non-notability and WP:BLP violations. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy and 'righting great wrongs'"
pbp 14:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, a WP:COATRACK actually is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. - doesn't seem the case here. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue, for the record, that this does fall under the "Attack Page" subtype of WP:COATRACK, given that it's serving to present negative information about a bunch of WP:BLP1Es under the guise of being a list of notable incidents. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to start your own separate "name and shame the lowlifes" website somewhere else, I wouldn't stop you. But that is not, and will not become, Wikipedia's role. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nobody is defending the morally bankrupt jackasses that abuse animals, but this is not the village stocks, it is an encyclopedia and IAR is not applicable as what you propose does not improve the encyclopedia, which is the one and only reason for ignoring a rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even if I'm the lonely keep !vote above, for sure name-and-shame is not the reason I feel this should be kept, and it should not be actually the reason for any decision here.--cyclopiaspeak! 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per other arguments above and, too many to list everything significant, by nature, must cherry-pick. Bummer though, and I vote this was as a member of wikiproject animals, but would be like "list of rapists in the United States" or something. Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 25 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LordQuest

[edit]
LordQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A record producer that has only produced for a few notable artists, but has not received anything close to significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 14:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:21, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:15, 22 August 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 Unitrans. Consider bundling similar lots in the future. See first AfD of lot for precedent. (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT3889

[edit]
Unitrans RT3889 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Note as previous AFD. Tom the Tomato Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:07, 22 August 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 Unitrans. Consider bundling similar lots in the future. See first AfD of lot for precedent. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT1235

[edit]
Unitrans RT1235 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Note as previous AFD. Tom the Tomato Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:13, 22 August 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 Unitrans. Consider bundling similar lots in the future. See first AfD of lot for precedent. (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT1523

[edit]
Unitrans RT1523 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Note as previous AFD. Tom the Tomato Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:12, 22 August 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 Unitrans. Consider bundling similar lots in the future. See first AfD of lot for precedent. (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT2819

[edit]
Unitrans RT2819 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Note as previous AFD. Tom the Tomato Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:10, 22 August 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 Unitrans. Consider bundling similar lots in the future. See first AfD of lot for precedent. (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT3123

[edit]
Unitrans RT3123 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Note as previous AFD. Tom the Tomato Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:09, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein

[edit]
Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently, the only thing notable about this woman is that she is a member of two currently reigning dynasties - a double princess, one might say. Until I nominated it for deletion, the article stated that she had "no official state role" and that she only attended weddings and "other family events". I have been editing articles about royals for years and this made wonder if she is notable at all. I tried Googling, hoping that I would find information about her that would help me expand and improve the article, but there simply isn't any. She is a patron of an apparently equally unnotable organization and that's it. She did not inherit notability from her father, her husband or her brother-in-law. She is no more notable than Sarah Obama, who presumably also "attends weddings and other family events". Simply being titled does not make her notable either. There are probably tens of thousands of people with legally recognized titles, ranging from knight/dame to prince/princess. The title alone does not make them notable. The Princely House of Liechtenstein is Europe's largest royal house, having more than 100 members. Given that Liechtenstein itself is so small, it's no wonder that a vast of majority of its princes and princesses function as private citizens, working as bankers, businesspeople, tourism entrepreneurs, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Can't find any particular pieces of information that would fully satisfy WP:BIO. Sources point to weddings and again pictures of minor events and functions. All the other Grand Duke have article for the children, so it would be a bit silly to delete such a lovely article. scope_creep talk 20:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other crap exists. The articles about her siblings are completely irrelevant, but while we're discussing them, it should be noted that they at least resemble proper biographies. We don't have articles about all her in-laws, because not all of them are public figures. Margaretha is not a public figure. She has no constitutional position, no state role, no "royal duties". Margaretha is a private citizen. Surtsicna (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Margaretha is not a private person. She is unique in Europe, perhaps the last of the tradition of women who have contracted international dynastic marriages, holding the dual status of being legally princesses of two reigning dynasties in Europe's seven remaining monarchies. That differentiates her not only from the alleged "tens of thousands" of persons who "hold" noble (not royal) titles, but even from those who belong by birth or marriage to reigning families. Unlike the relatives of elected officials temporarily elevated to the limelight, she: is eligible to inherit one throne and her son to inherit another; holds rare legal titles; receives coverage in news, books and on government websites (see the article's sources) by virtue of that status; her marriage and those of her children require the legal approval of the head of state, unlike those of any other persons in their respective nations and unlike those of celebrities or politicians' relatives. WP:NOTINHERITED is a guideline, not a policy, and is subject to both dissent and exceptions; we are not obliged to apply it and in this unique case, at the very least, I think there are grounds for considering it an exception. Too much of the criticism directed at this article is of unsourced material already removed: this article is well-sourced. FactStraight (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That she is "unique in Europe" has only been noted by you, as far as I know. Please correct me if an historian or genealogist noted the same. I disagree with your assertion that she is eligible to inherit a throne. She is not and has never been eligible to succeed to the throne of Luxembourg. Until very recently, succession rights were vested in patrilineal descendants of Grand Duke William IV's daughters. Had Charlotte's male line failed, the crown would have passed to the heirs male of her sisters, in priority of birth, and not Charlotte's female descendants. There is no scenario under which Margaretha could have inherited it. As for coverage in news, books and government websites - it can easily be seen that she is mentioned only in passing. Half the sources in the article deal with genealogy, not with Margaretha herself. I would really like this article to be improved enough to be worth keeping, which is why I've contributed to it, but it does not seem to have the potential because its subject is not a public figure or notable for anything (except, in your opinion, for holding titles). Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 16 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As members of an American meritocracy, we look at members of these European royal families derisively as effete, because they have little to nothing in the way of individual accomplishments to recommend them and claim notability solely by birthright. We fail to appreciate their inherent and notable function in their own societies as national figureheads and social coherent, specially, in a small principality like Leichtenstein. This is a highly ethnocentric and myopic focus. 64.134.102.201 (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]

Why on Earth would you assume that we are all "members of an American meritocracy" and therefore "ethnocentric"? That insults me. Your comment immediately reminded me of "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" kind of argument. For what it's worth, I am European. I don't fail to appreciate Margaretha's "inherent and notable function" because there isn't any to appreciate. She is not a national figurehead and, as I have shown, she has no notable function in any society. If she had, there would be plenty of RS confirming it. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comment is directed at Tammytoons' fellow U.S. residents and is intended to encourage them to be more respectful of the diversity in styles of governance European democracies reflect, including constitutional monarchies. If that shoe doesn't fit you, you needn't put it on. FactStraight (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Margaretha is one of five members of the royal family for which the government of Luxembourg has issued bios PER THIS. That's good enough for me, I think, to demonstrate that this is a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. The dual dynasties thing is an added hook. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 27 August 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. Consensus here is pretty close to a split between a keep and merge, and the article requires retention in order for a potential merge to occur. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Azad bibliography

[edit]
Humayun Azad bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced list of mostly non-notable books, none of which are backed up with any reliable sources and some of which are also up for AfD. Also potentially fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE - 'Excessive listings of statistics'. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that isn't a language I'm familiar with - if you are, please add sources and improve the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All this material can also be found on Humayun Azad. Hence it should be removed from the main article or this should be deleted/redirected. I'm not sure he quite needs a separate bibliography, but it's reasonable to carry this information somewhere since almost all notable writers have some form of Wikipedia bibliography either in their main article or as a spin-out. Even if you believe some of these books do not exist, that is not grounds for deletion, only editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having a list article as a content fork when an article gets too large is a good idea. Having a list of a notable author's works is also a good idea. However (and this is kind of the crux of my argument), the information still has to be verifiable, so unless and until somebody improves the list by citing each work to a reliable source, we should not have it. Compare and contrast with List of Hammond organs - note how every single entry is sourced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A part of his bibliography is verifiable by this reliable source (Dawn). I'm sure it is possible to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That partially addresses the verifiability issue, but I'm not sure it addresses the issue of being an inappropriate content fork. The current revision of Humayun Azad is 17,885 bytes, of which 5527 (824 words) is prose. As a general rule of thumb, you probably want to be looking an article size of at least double that to think about having a bibliography as a content fork. To give a comparable example, Salman Rushdie is on 55K, has several content splits, but his bibliography is not one of them and listed in the main article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can be a list of works of a notable writer inappropriate content fork? The bibliography could be redirected and merged to Humayun Azad but we should not delete it. Btw, I know that the recent AfD noms regarding Humayun Azad are affected by this ANI thread. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I feel a merge / redirect is only appropriate if you think somebody's likely to type the name into the search box, and I tend to find "'x' bibliography", "'x' discography" or "list of 'x'" works aren't. And I'd say the same regardless of who's appeared on ANI recently, as I made this identical argument before (example 1, example 2) regardless of who happened to create the article in the first place. I'll admit I was a bit harsh about saying "non-notable" when I probably actually meant "not currently verified". Let's see what other people have to say on the issue now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to author page. 1) if the books are notable is irrelevant, books don't need to pass notability to be included in a bibliography 2) The bibliography here is better, it's in table format with additional information. 3) I don't think the list is so long that it needs a separate bibliography. Merge into the author page. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 16 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 22 August 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 Unitrans. Consider bundling similar lots in the future. See first AfD of lot for precedent. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT4735

[edit]
Unitrans RT4735 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Note as previous AFD. Tom the Tomato Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:04, 22 August 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) 22:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smiljka Rodić

[edit]
Smiljka Rodić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fencer who is currently ranked 130th in the world, coming off of a 45th place finish at the European championships. A bronze at the Mediterranean games does not show notability because it's not considered a major competition. In fact, the international fencing organization awards zero rating points for that event. Jakejr (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that all 200+ men in the epee competition are automatically notable? I don't think so. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that for Serbia this female competitor is notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any notability criteria where notability is based on what country you're from. That might be covered by WP:GNG, but I explained below why I don't believe she meets that. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 25 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase In ictu oculi, I'm assuming those who voted Keep didn't read the links and are unfamiliar with WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. These sources are the epitome of routine sports reporting. Let's look at the links provided by Whpq: Article 1 mentions her result on the first day of the world championships "Another Serbian representative in the French capital Smiljka Rodic ranked 112th in competition with 192 participants." Article 2 merely saws she won 2 of her 5 bouts and lost 15-3 in the Mediterranean Games semifinals. Article 3 mentions her only in a list of scheduled matches. Article 4 is the exact same article as article 2, except in Croatian instead of Serbian. Article 5 is another brief article on her performance at the Mediterranean Games. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My previous comment explains why I believe the coverage does not meet WP:GNG. The bronze at the Mediterranean Games is not enough to show notability--she won a bronze despite losing more matches than she won in an event that the FIE doesn't even consider worth rating. I don't see what achievements Oakshade is saying make her notable. I couldn't find any specific notability criteria for fencers, but since I came across this article under a catscan search for martial arts articles, it seems reasonable to look at the martial arts criteria. There we see that being an Olympic participant, world champion, or repeated medalist at a significant event (defined as several dozen competitors from different countries) are grounds for notability. She meets none of these and merely competing at a world championship does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—WP:ROUTINE coverage is all that exists, per Papaursa. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:16, 29 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Norwegian Eastern Championship

[edit]

This is national championship only. It is VERY annonymous and poorly information. Large media never mentioned about this tournament. This article should not exist. Banhtrung1 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Norwegian Eastern Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:23, 8 August 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 · · 06:43, 15 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Worsteling

[edit]
Paul Worsteling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article; he may possible be notable as a TV presenter on fishing if it can actually be verified that his program is not just " now regarded by many as Australia’s premier fishing program, " but actually is Australia's premier fishing program as judged by some actual award, not just by nominations. Nothing else here is possibly notable; e.g. "He and his wife ... are now working to establish Tackleworld Mornington to service the needs ...." . In ordinary objective english, it translates as "he and his wife are hoping to build a notable business." DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:27, 11 August 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 · · 06:41, 15 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InterContinental Danang Sun Peninsula Resort

[edit]
InterContinental Danang Sun Peninsula Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article sounds promotional which is WP:PROMOTION, also sounds like a guide which is WP:NOTGUIDE. The article itself is not encyclopedic content at all. EuroCarGT 05:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:23, 15 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 22 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador International

[edit]
Ambassador International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is advertising for a minor publisher. Almost none of the authors or books is notable. Some of the people who have written forwards to the books are notable, but that doesn't amount to much.

The references are to directory listings for the company, and minor unreliable reviews of the books, and interviews with the various authors, a good number of them from Amazon.

I'm amazed this was accepted from AfC. I've notified the acceptor. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The books of a publisher do not have to be notable for the publisher to be notable. We are not giving an endorsement to the publisher as a publisher of reliable sources. We have (and should have) articles on comic book publishers. That being said it is not clear that we have citations about the publisher from trade journals or any articles on the publisher. It verges on original research but I notice other more establish publishers suffer from similar problems. I'm concerned but not yet convinced it should be deleted. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:23, 15 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 22 August 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) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Tanski

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bart Tanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If we are going by WP:ATHLETE, which seems the pretty clear choice for determing notability, Tanski does not meet the criterion for High school athletes (yes, he played at Bowling Green, but he was a walk-on and never won any national awards or recognition, so his case would be even weaker if we used the college athlete criterion.) The high school criterion states

:High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage...The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.

It was pointed out in previous nominations that his coverage has neither been sustained, substantial, nor outside noteworthy non-local news sources. Do quick news search on any search engine you like, the only result I found is that he has "completed passes," and that was just a local paper covering a game. Most news-coverage of him took place nearly 7 years ago, all of it was local (Ohio), and it was all routine interviews focused on a single event (his Mr. Football Award). Any somewhat more recent coverage (which is still old) was by local papers asking him questions about his award, and his thoughts on later recipients of the Mr. Football award, which was also pointed out in previous in nominations.

A mention in Mr. Football Award (Ohio) under the year he won is sufficient coverage for Bart Tanski. He does not warrant his own page unless he receives some other form of national recognition for his college career, or if he is drafted and plays games on a professional level. Nonagon13 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.

Nonagon13 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no new arguments for deletion have been introduced, except "the news articles are old" -- but notability is not temporary. I maintain that the subject has achieved notability for the reasons I outlined the last time we had this discussion. Barring any reason given to change position, I still say it's a keeper, espeically with the buzz created from his college playing which is more than enough to pass WP:GNG even if WP:ATHLETE is not met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I came down on the delete side last time, but it was a close call (5 to 3) that was legitimately closed as no consensus. The prior AfD was earlier this year. I'm not a fan of re-listing an AfD like this simply because one side doesn't care for the prior closure. Nothing has really changed, and I don't see a good reason to re-open this. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Something's odd about this nom. The original nom was by a user User:TheRunningDude whose only Wikipedia edits ever were to nominate this article for deletion. The new nomination is by another user User:Nonagon13 whose only Wikipedia edits ever are to nominate this article for deletion. It seems a bit unusual that a brand new user would cite policy in detail in his first Wikpedia edits which are this nomination. Is there a hidden agenda here? I always like to assume good faith but these factors make me wonder. Can Nonagon clarify please? Cbl62 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worth considering. Nice catch. (p.s. you're right, last time was "no consensus")--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and Cbl62 in the last AFD. I really didn't understand the no consensus close while there was well-reasoned rationales in the delete side that was stronger than the keep side (Ret.Prof doesn't count, he always votes per X keep on every AFD with a keep comment without looking at the article). High school football player with only a brief amount of fame and hardly college football. Now a private individual, this falls under WP:BLP1E as there is no sourcing outside his high school career, and WP:ATHLETE. Lets not keep biographies with the faintest amount of coverage as it will only cause problems in the end. Secret account 03:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question How do you know that Ret.Prof doesn't look at the articles? Are you sitting there when it happens?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seen dozens of AFDs he's been involved in, all with the same rationale, some within minutes of each other. That doesn't indicate an editor who studies AFDs arguments closely. Secret account 17:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or maybe the editor completes review and research of a set of outstanding AFDs all at once and then goes back to make comments later. I've done that, I doubt I'm alone. Further, some of the more "stubby" articles can be reviewed in a minute or two. In either case, the assertion that the editor doesn't even look at the article is pure speculation and is an argument against the person. I see no reason to assume bad faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems like 'I didn't like how the last AfD turned out, so lets try it again.' No new information has become available and no new arguments are being advanced that have not already been considered. Both the Nom and Secret's argument expressly state that their basis is on what was previously discussed. Without new information or a new argument that has not been previously considered, the article should be kept based on the result of the last AfD. RonSigPi (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT trumps here, and there is no evidence that the subject ever met GNG in the first place, except for a small rash of articles that were released following him winning a regional award. Also just because the article was kept doesn't mean it can't be nominated again, especially one that ended up as no consensus. Secret account 17:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not one event, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't even apply, much less trump anything. The article covers the individual, not an event around the individual. Yes, the "Mr. Football" would be one event, but there is also the 2008-2012 college football seasons at Bowling Green. Stubby? Sure. Incomplete? You bet. In dire need of detail? Of course. One event? Not even close.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But would we be discussing this article, if it was about his Bowling Green career only? Of course not. One event applies. Secret account 18:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:CRYSTAL also applies to the speculation if something didn't happen. No one has any idea what the article or his life would have looked like if he hadn't won "Mr. Football" but instead went straight to Bowling Green. Maybe instead of entering football in college he would have focused on physics and created breakthrough technology to save the world or built a better mousetrap. However, I would say that his college football career and other events since then can only add to the potential notability and certainly not take away.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I question if this should be under WP:ONEEVENT. While winning the award is technically a single occurrence, it is actually the culmination of a season worth of work. My reading of WP:ONEEVENT (and brief review of its history) is more for isolated events that become newsworthy. Something like being victim of a crime that is featured on the news. Thought the award here for notability (and coverage following the award) is clearly not as important or significant, it is like saying winning the Heisman Trophy or the John Mackey Award are under WP:ONEEVENT. I would think that winners of these awards don't fall under WP:ONEEVENT since the award directly relates to an entire season. Likewise, I don't think I would file a cumulative award for an entire season under a single event. RonSigPi (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also question if this should be under WP:BLP1E. First, as I say in my last point I don't know if you would call this a single event (addressing the 1st requirement). Second, I am not sure on the 2nd requirement of "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Being captain of the Bowling Green football team (now added to the article) and continuing on to play at a Division I school could be considered to go against the person being low-profile. Similar to my last point, someone who is a victim of a crime is likely going to fade away into obscurity quickly after coverage dies down. An athlete that is continuing a career on the next level with greater media attention is likely not remaining low profile. RonSigPi (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment The wording of the nomination above really stretches WP:ROUTINE far beyond its intent. The comment that it "excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications" does not match the wording in WP:ROUTINE, specifically "sports scores" -- some of these sources include basic box scores, but others cover the subject in detail. Just because it is a "sports article" does not make it "routine".--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When a game happens every week, yes its considered routine coverage, if the subject gets individual articles written about him then its not routine. Again the coverage is mostly limited to one high school award six years ago and then it vanishes. Secret account 01:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories)." Note the sport matches, which you clearly should know. Secret account 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question isn't an about a sports match. It doesn't apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:51, 14 August 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Exceedingly minor schoolboy American football player, whose achieved a minor US state award for best high school football player. Afraid not. It seems we are trying to dramatically widen or perhaps dilute the WP:GNG guidelines to such an extent that anybody with a tiny modicum of recognition, can now get an article. Articles like these dilute the spirit and letter of WP. scope_creep talk 19:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:LOCALFAME covers the idea of "Subjective importance" and states that it is "not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions." However, I do find it interesting how you seem to be concerned about widening or diluting the spirit of WP:GNG as if those who support keeping the article are making it say more than it actually is, and yet at the same time you call a Division I college football team captain a "schoolboy" -- which can reduce the subject to be less than the subject actually is. That argument kind of turns in on itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and not notable for anything else.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Continued to be noted years later, establishing lasting significance as in Plain Dealer - Aug 26, 2011

"Coach Steve Trivisonno was unafraid to make an immediate comparison to former Mr. Football winner Bart Tanski, who led the Cardinals to the 2006 and 2007..." and Plain Dealer Sep 30, 2011 "He is a bigger (6-3, 195), stronger version of Mentor's 2007 Mr. Football, Bart Tanski, who led the Cardinals to state finals his junior and senior years..." Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:18, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naree

[edit]
Naree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No reliable sources, all sources consist of sales sites for the book. No GHits/GNews hits. Promotional. Approved via AfC, possibly by meatpuppet (see ANI discussion). GregJackP Boomer! 00:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Send back to AfC per sources found by Vejvančický, so the article can be worked on more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can support that. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Vejvančický. Disagree it needs to be sent through the extra bureaucratic overhead of AfC, either we think it's notable or delete. Content issues can be worked out by editors. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:17, 21 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 27 August 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. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paxforex

[edit]
Paxforex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising article for a share trading platform/software company. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:20, 15 August 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) 01:35, 22 August 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 David Crowder Band#Discography. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Happiness

[edit]
Summer Happiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable EP from a notable artist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 15 August 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) 01:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep or Redirect to David_Crowder_Band#Discography. I'm leaning towards redirecting this rather than keeping, as I don't think that the album's chart rank is really high enough to give notability on that element alone. That's pretty much the only true claim to notability it has, but it only got to 105 out of 200. It's a great feat for a religious album, but considering that I have only one other RS it just doesn't seem like enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Music notability guidelines WP:NSONG say a song may be notable if it has charted, but getting to #105 is not what most people would think if you said a record had charted. Fails basic notability requirements due to lack of media coverage in multiple in-depth reliable sources (one article only). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 22 August 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. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo Services

[edit]
Dodo Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement. I think it should be possible to have an article, but the only way to do it would be to start over; I am reluctant to benefit the writers of advertisements on WP by our rewriting their work into acceptable articles . I'm surprised this was accepted from afc contained phrases like " whilst benefiting from Dodo Mobile, STD and International discount rates. " or "Dodo Insurance offers a range of affordable car, home and contents insurance policies" or "giving Dodo customers a chance to win an exclusive money-can't-buy V8 Supercar experience " ; I've notified the acceptor. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:56, 15 August 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) 01:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom is pure promotional, also some sections appear to be COPYVIO from other websites. Caffeyw (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete / Edit - This article has been written in order to represent, outline and describe Dodo Services Pty Ltd as a business in Australia. We will revise the article in the meantime in order to remove advertisement-like phrases and increase neutrality. Jesseoey (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2013 (AEST)
  • Delete—Agree with DGG... there's more promotional in this article than there is encyclopedic. While the subject is potentially notable, the current article is a prime example of using WP to advertise and increase legitimacy, and a rewrite would have to be nearly from scratch. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:38, 29 August 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. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Nath Ray

[edit]
Jitendra Nath Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has claims of notability but no references at all. Cursory Google search also didn't give much. Funny stuff is that the same content is also seen at User:Jitendra Nath Ray and there is a Jitendra Nath Ray (talk · contribs) also. Something fishy here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:07, 15 August 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) 01:32, 22 August 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. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HolidayIQ.com

[edit]
HolidayIQ.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising site which fails WP:GNG. Brand new portal website, neither venerable nor notable. scope_creep 13:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:31, 15 August 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) 01:31, 22 August 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. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coskun Yilmaz

[edit]
Coskun Yilmaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising article which diminishes WP: Fails WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:31, 15 August 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) 01:30, 22 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Caffery (musician)

[edit]
Toby Caffery (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article for a non-notiable musician in and band of dubious noteriaty, it appears to just be fancruft. Fails WP:NMUSIC CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 August 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) 01:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, not a single reference found; not even notable. Ashbeckjonathan 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenProject

[edit]

OpenProject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. A regional award given before the project had released anything. No independent sources to back up claims of widespread use. Might become notable in the future but much too early. fork of a fork of an opensource project. noq (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Being a fork of a fork of an opensource project is no reason to delete. I created this as a redirect to the similar sounding but different OpenProj. So I am happy to have this as a redirect again. I can only find primary sources or second party references, but no independent references that could show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an OpenProject (disambiguation) page so the link to OpenProj und ProjectLibre can be found. -- Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found another external reference: a publication in the printed version of the magazine Screenguide. OpenProject was discussed along with three other collaboration tools. So please have a look at this. I suggest to remove the deletion mark by now and putting an effort in adding further sources. How does this sound?
    Regarding your concern about the widespread use I would like to point out that more users registered on openproject.org[1] than on redmine.org[2]. Please also have also a look at the code statistics on github. Did you take this into consideration? -- Nicmarwin (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability can be derived from these facts:

  • The term OpenProject can be found in Google.com 104.000 times; some of these pertaining to OpenProj (the stand alone project planning application), some of them pertaining to the web solution OpenProject. For these I have written the page OpenProject (disambiguation).
  • OpenProject has a complete tertiary source, namely the German article de:OpenProject;
  • OpenProject has some magazine articles and even a book; [*1]
  • OpenProject's first outline won the 1st prize of an open source award of the City of Berlin. If a Berlin award is a "regional award" then some Silicon Valley awards would be "regional" as well. Berlin is an important open source location and has significance at least for Europe.
  • OpenProject is being developed by a staff of 17 full time working graduates, cf. [http//finn.de/team finn.de/team].
  • Global players (among these Siemens and Telekom) rely on OpenProject. [*2]

One could think of deleting the article now and come back after half a year as soon as the next developing step is reported by the press. But I would prefer to keep the article; maybe shorten it a bit. -- Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To address your points:
  • The number of ghits some of which pertain to this article is not relevant. Raw google hit counts are misleading.
  • Another wiki article is not a tertiary source - it is not even a reliable source.
  • cite? The screenguide article above is useful but not sufficient in itself.
  • An idea about a project won an award - does not make the project notable in itself.
  • The number of people working on it is not relevant to WP:notability
  • Evidence for this? Rely is a big word to use there. [*2]
noq (talk) 08:04, 14 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability per nom. Caffeyw (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, with users such as Deutsche Telekom and Congstar (this one not yet translated from German Wikipedia).[47] More are likely to appear, and thus, boost the article's worthiness further. --ConCelFan (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


[*1] Book on OpenProject (I did not read it yet):[3]

[*2] Evidence, that Telekom relies on OpenProject:

-- Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  1. ^ https://www.openproject.org/users/3500
  2. ^ http://www.redmine.org/users/3500
  3. ^ Jürgen Bruns, Projekte planen mit OpenProject
  4. ^ http://before.telekom.de, last line
  5. ^ http://myproject.telekom.de, last line
  6. ^ Information from the developers; citation needed!
Comment Evidence of use is not evidence of reliance. In any case, without independent coverage there is no notability. A 40 page book published by a project consultancy is no indication of notability. noq (talk) 08:49, 19 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


We should take into account that those OpenProject guys are good developers und businessmen, but they aren't experienced encyclopedists (and unfortunately they did not ask me before they started their Wikipedia article).

User:Mr._Stradivarius wrote:

  • > I failed to find any sources that pass WP:RS and are independent of OpenProject ...

It is true that there are not so overwhelming many articles on OpenProject.
But it is true that secondary source articles do exist: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

References:

  1. ^ http://screengui.de/magazin/magazin-archiv/detail/mehr-effizienz.html
  2. ^ That print article as PDF see http://w.offenesprojekt.de/OpenProject/Screenguide_2013-01.pdf; OpenProject is delt with on p. 17
  3. ^ http://www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/networking/made-to-create/detailseite/datum/2012/oktober/01/den-ueberblick-behalten/
  4. ^ http://www.ohloh.net/p/openproject
  5. ^ http://open-it-berlin.de/openitberlin/akteure/3217
  6. ^ http://open-it-berlin.de/aktuelles/preisverleihung-wettbewerb-zu-open-source-und-open-standards-%E2%80%9Eberlins-zukunft-ist-offen%E2%80%9C

User:noq wrote:

  • > Evidence of use is not evidence of reliance.

IMHO, in this case evidence of use is evidence of importance, because OpenProject is important and essential for all Telekom projects:
There is no Telekom project communication without OpenProject; and the same also applies to many parts of Siemens.
Notability and importance do have a strong intersection and interrelation.
It is true that OpenProject hitherto has its focus more on "industrial application" than on "numerous single users", but it is true as well that thousands of Telekom, Congstar and Siemens workers work each day with OpenProject tools.

For this and because many people see the word OpenProject, it seams to me important to disambiguate between OpenProj (which is popularly also addressed as OpenProject) and OpenProject, so OpenProject (disambiguation) has to be kept.
And if thus the disambiguation is kept (because it is important) it looks better to keep OpenProject (which is important for thousands of working people). --Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to repeat the same references every time you post here. And no, evidence of use does nothing to show WP:notability or importance. Wikipedia uses notability not importance whatever that means to you. You keep stressing that lots of people rely on it, when all you show is some people use it. Directory entries, page indexes and project pages are not significant coverage. The only ref above that might help would be the pdf. Unfortunately I cannot read that and as it is made of images instead of text I can't use google to translate it so I don't know if it helps your case or not - the others do not. noq (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have received the Screenguide magazine article as PDF:
       http://offenesprojekt.de/openproject/scg16_seiten-16-21_openproject.pdf
and I have copied it to HTML:
       http://offenesprojekt.de/OpenProject/Screenguide_de.html
and translated it into English:
       http://offenesprojekt.de/OpenProject/Screenguide_en.html
Hope, that this article counts as secondary source. --Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today the developers of OpenProject told me that "soon" there will be an article on OpenProject in the English webzine http://OpenSource.com.
Once again – it is true that there are not so many articles on OpenProject, but there are articles. --Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 15:05, 31 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avanhard (Vorokhta)

[edit]
Avanhard (Vorokhta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a complaint on WP:ANI, I started arguing with the creator of the article, User:Aleksandr Grigoryev, about the promotional external links he was adding, but upon looking more closely at the article, I think it's pure promotion altogether, and should be deleted per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Neither of the two references offered are in a language I can read, but they certainly look commercial to me. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Gibraltarpedia. In fact, someone needs to get this to DYK, quick! More seriously, whether this is promotional or not (personally it looks to me more like just some undue enthusiasm) the subject of the article is notable. Certainly by the standards that have been laid by the Gibraltar folks.Volunteer Marek 18:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go by policy rather than the fact that other crap exists. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      • Honestly, most of it could probably be merged into the Vorokhta article but I also want to see what Aleksandr can do with it. I think the "Avanhard" itself was a training camp for Soviet Olympic athletes so that's some potential notability right there. My limited knowledge of Ukrainian and Russian and difficulties with searching in Cyrillic mean that's about all I can find at this point. (I recognize the OTHERCRAP argument and it's valid. But you KNOW that if the Ukrainian gov started promoting Wikipedians to write about tourist attractions in Ukraine, this'd be kept, people who object would be yelled at, it'd wind up on the front page, etc. So basically we tolerate and enable promotion as long as it's organized and backed, but not when it's some local enthusiast doing it.)Volunteer Marek 18:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability. Wiki is no for self-promotion/advertising. Caffeyw (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: this is a brand new user 90%+ of whose contributions since March of this year comprise of "Delete" votes in seemingly random AfDs. Also, an early edit such as this [48] makes it pretty clear that this is not a new user. Something sketchy is surely afoot.Volunteer Marek 23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So because I did what Wiki suggests, be bold, in one article, I'm now doing something wrong? An article that per discussions needed some help. Yes I've focused on AfDs, I'd like to contribute in the best way I can. Right now I have time to be able to sit down and run searches. I've not had many keeps because most the time, there's already enough of a consensus to keep. It'd be an example of posting, just to post. Caffeyw (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem occurred with majorly due to the website that promotes hotels. The purpose of me listing was not however to promote. There site does actually list facts about the resort which could not currently can be found on the internet. Here is the translation of the first three paragraphs from the website (once again, please, do not follow price offers presented on the bottom of a page at the website).

Now the user 173.68.110.16, deleted some of the information and wrote "No, I do not want to stay in your hotel." I do not know whether the user was looking to book a vacation for himself or not, but it certainly sounded very strange to me and completely out of the blue as my intentions were not to provide realy any information on vacation spots, but rather to provide info on sports infrastructure in the region. Therefore I also added a follow up link to the Avanhard (sports society). The fact that there are three ski ramps that are seen even from space on the google maps I guess just do not convince a lot of people. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it's calles sarcasm, or something along those lines.however, much of the aticle does appear to be an advert, so delete.-- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My God! Could it be??? Someone on Wiki actually understands the concept of sarcasm? My faith in humanity has been restored! 173.68.110.16 (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for "ski ramps being visible from space" - my dear patriotic friend, I can also find the word "Хуй" being painted on some of the locations in Russia, clearly visible on satellite images from Google, but it doesn't mean it is necessary to write an article about that especially if such information was only covered by personal blogs or by private sites using this info to advertise their own services (such as, for example, by a site that sells interior and exterior paint products). Hopefully you'll get what I am trying to say ;-) 173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More important than subject and scope are reliable sources to establish encyclopedic notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 15 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 22 August 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. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service Pipe Band

[edit]
North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Grade 4 bands do not appear to be notable. Sorry. Jamesx12345 20:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:13, 22 August 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) 22:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Scales (American football)

[edit]
Patrick Scales (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:Athlete. By all accounts, he has had an unremarkable college career, failing to meet WP:NCOLLATH and fails all criteria set forth by WP:NGRIDIRON. The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail to meet the criteria noted above for Patrick Scales. This batch comes as a result from a discussion at ANI in regards to a series of questionable articles that I have listed on my talk page:

Roosevelt Holliday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Antavious Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wilson He played extensively at Marshall and has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. No opinion on the other two at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of them won a national award in college nor (yet) played a snap in the NFL. I don't watch a lot of Marshall football so I can't comment on Paul's assertion that Wilson received plenty of coverage; all I can say is that the article doesn't reflect it and makes no assertion of notability. EDIT: just to expand on this, none of the articles asserts notability beyond playing college football, which isn't enough. None explains why this person might pass the GNG. Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:RTS if you cannot comment on the coverage, you probably shouldn't comment at all. WP:N is based on the coverage of the subject of the article, not how well the article is written in its current state.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or you could demonstrate that coverage. I did do a cursory Google search and I didn't find much, and I don't really remember hearing about him (I don't see many Marshall games, but I do watch more college football than most people). Why is Wilson noteworthy? I don't think it's fair for you to ask me, or anyone else, to just take your word for it. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay How's this for starters? I don't think you did a google search as you claimed. This is just google news and it's restricted to +"Antavious Wilson" +Marshall and we're looking at hundreds of articles. Local news, regional newspapers, TV, Illinois, Memphis, ESPN. Significant wide coverage in reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you should reconsider calling another editor a liar in a deletion debate, unless you think that somehow benefits your case. I don't recall having interacted with you previously and I don't know under what basis you're making that assertion. Of course there are hits for Wilson in Google News. It's very difficult for that to otherwise be the case when all Division I football games are covered nationally. I would also expect skill position players to receive more coverage than, say, a lineman. However, much of this coverage is routine. If there is "significant" coverage that implies that he did something noteworthy or stood out in some way, yet not enough to justify being drafted by an NFL team. Our current article is unhelpful, listing his touchdowns and receptions each year without context. College football players aren't automatically notable. Has he won any awards, besides being named to the C-USA All-Freshman team? That's probably not enough; it implies potential but not importance. Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comments The basis is quite simple, and anyone can repeat the results as outlined above. I suppose it's possible that the editor did the google search incorrectly and mis-spelled the search or something like that. My search was restricted to Google News and further restricted to the text strings "Antavious Wilson" and "Marshall", yet this restrictive search produces hundreds of articles and the other editor claims to searching all of google and "didn't find much" -- Couple that with the editor's admitted failure to do the research up front and I believe what we have here is someone who should not be commenting in AFD until they learn more about the process. --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • More comments "I've never heard of him" is not a reason to delete. --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still more comments granted that playing college football is not automatic notability, but you should also understand that there are many paths to notability. It's possible for a player to never win any awards yet still achieve notability. The general notability guideline is a good place to start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • And finally... The article in its present state leaves a lot to be desired, but the present state of the article is not the measure of notability for the subject. The subject itself is the measure of notability. Wikipedia is far from complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just so we're clear, I'm the editor in question and I ran the exact search you did. I declined to read through all the results to determine if I was missing something because it's not incumbent on me to prove the article is notable. It's incumbent on the article to assert notability. It doesn't. The article says Wilson played college football, was signed as a free agent by an NFL team and cut before playing a snap of pro football. None of that makes him presumptively notable. If he's received significant coverage as a person then he's notable. Has he? We are dancing around the issue. It shouldn't be necessary to be an expert in Marshall football in order to evaluate the importance of the subject. Why is this person important? We don't know and the article doesn't tell us. Instead of being dismissive and rude, you might consider improving the article. You said there's significant coverage so I assumed that you were prepared to state what that coverage was. Google News hits alone aren't significant coverage without context. If I misunderstood your claim then I apologize. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • What makes you think I'm an "expert" in Marshall football? I just did the google news search and read a bunch of the hundreds of articles and left it at that. Something that anyone could have done--but you have admitted that you have not. Improvement of the article can come later when enthusiastic editors (perhaps me) have more time for editinig and development. But there is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holliday I'm not finding any significant coverage (or really any coverage at all) for his college career or any other measure of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scales Easily enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:04, 7 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 14 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 22 August 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. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas' Episcopal School Pipe Band

[edit]
St. Thomas' Episcopal School Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus seems to be that only Grade 1 bands are notable. Jamesx12345 20:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:11, 22 August 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Wrestling

[edit]
Progress Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not demonstrably have independent 3rd party coverage. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 7 August 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, ~HueSatLum 16:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability. References appear to be company information driven. Also reads as an advertisement for the most part and not a balanced article on a subject. Caffeyw (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not delete - This company is very significant in the re-ascent of British Wrestling, and around half a dozen third party links to praise of the company have been included. None of the company referenced information are anything more than facts and statements of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleslie92 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Comment) - for the very reasons listed by the person above for non-deletion. If and when it "re-ascends" then it might become notable, but Wiki is not a CRYSTAL. Links of praise don't establish notability. All they are, are one person/companies opinion. Caffeyw (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm pretty sure that one can only vote once at any single given AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First there's no voting on AfD. It's based on a consensus. Second replying to rebut someone's post is perfectly acceptable as far as I know. I might have changed Delete to Comment to make it more clear, I kept Delete to show I was still arguing for Deletion. Either way you can post more the once in order to rebut a person's comment. Caffeyw (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple voting is discouraged. If you want to reply to some one else's comments, it is better to inset the response with colons. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the duplicate delete !vote above and added "(Comment)". Only 1 !vote is allowed, per longstanding practice at AfD. Multiple comments are, of course, allowed. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be happy to undertake that task, as the original author, though would require further guidance on why stating what happened and the results are considered "like an advertisement", my experience with Wikipedia is limited. Cleslie92 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources meet GNG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm also dubious about their notability. Seems the Daily Star article is the only independent piece that asserts any notion of notability. The book by Carrie Dunn may as well, although I'm concerned that the book mentions Progress Wrestling in a trivial manner. The cover of the book features TNA stars from the UK and the Amazon description (which is used as a reference in the article) doesn't mention the subject at all. In the very least I don't think that is going to push it past the GNG bar.LM2000 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read it the Carrie Dunn book features PROGRESS extensively. You also ignored the references to Alternative Wrestling Magazine, Answering The Ten Count and GrappleTalk.com. User:Cleslie92 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I ignored them because I'm not entirely sure how reliable they are.LM2000 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't this the problem with this debate? How can people who have no subject knowledge decide what is notable? Cleslie92 (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're speaking strictly on the sources, which AfDs often focus on. As I've said before, I have concerns that the sources provided do not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). The three sources you last mentioned likely aren't reliable (one of them just 404s anyway), for a list of reliable sources for professional wrestling articles, check the styles guide. If this does survive deletion it will need some work, as User:Caffeyw has pointed out the current layout reads like a promotional brochure (WP:PROMOTION). I currently stand by my delete vote, as nom points out reliable independent coverage is seriously lacking.LM2000 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 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 · · 03:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ovidiu Sincai Social Democratic Institute

[edit]
Ovidiu Sincai Social Democratic Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The main problem here is the lack of substantive coverage dealing with the institute itself. Here's what we have so far:

  • A couple of news briefs about opinions expressed by the institute or its legal status. Given that ziare.com is a news aggregator that publishes everything it can find dealing with Romania, these shouldn't even be taken into consideration. If reputable newspapers have written on the events described, we can consider quoting those.
  • A couple more pieces, this time from somewhat more reliable outlets, about reports/recommendations made by the institute, and a change of leadership.
  • Nine papers (five linked, four unlinked) published by the institute. Not independent sources, so these can be disregarded.
  • A short description hosted by an organization to which the institute belongs (so again, not independent).

In sum, we don't really have sources that talk about the institute per se, just a handful of news reports mentioning its select activities. That doesn't seem enough. I suppose we could mention it at Social Democratic Party (Romania), but a separate article doesn't seem warranted. - Biruitorul Talk 14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I have done the requested updates. I am looking forward for the feedback and I want to know if the page is approved. ~~ MorganMorgan2011 ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganMorgan2011 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 August 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:07, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this article was considered for deletion because it didn't have concrete and objective sources. I have done the following things: - removed the ziare.com from references, I put instead valuable references (agerpres, other known and relevant newspaper) - put some more information about the institute - all the reports and papers have objective sources, not those from the Intitute itself - the lack of coverage was fixed, thus the article may be approved MorganMorgan2011 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC) MorganMorgan2011[reply]

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenstead End

[edit]
Fenstead End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable subject. Fenstead End is a tiny hamlet within Boxted Parish. It has no real notability, there is not alot that could be written about it anyway. I have searched and searched for information and history to add to the article, but I can't find anything. The only reference the article has is an atlas, just the prove the place even exists. The sensible option would be to delete the page and include Fenstead End as a section within it's parish's page (Boxted, Suffolk). This is in-keeping with the majority of other small hamlets who have no notability and about which not a lot can be said. Rushton2010 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is certainly more that can be said about the place, such as its appearance in the Domesday book nearly 1000 years ago - see the Open Domesday. Any settlement with such a long history is worth keeping. Warden (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - after improvements by CW; our practice has been to keep articles on clearly designated inhabited settlements (essay WP:NPLACE). Having said that there is much logic in a merge to Boxted as a separate section which would produce a more worthwhile page and be helpful to the reader by having all information on the parish on the one page. There is, though, no case for a straight delete or redirect (we cant delete and merge for GFDL reasons). My view is that the AfD should be closed as keep then, if required, there can be a separate merge discussion as an editorial matter. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPLACE and then initiate a merge request if a merge seems preferable to a stand-alone article. Deor (talk) 12:45, 23 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo Ruby Love

[edit]
Rodeo Ruby Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Deadbeef 07:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does meet the guidelines in WP:BAND and WP:GNG. I have gathered evident that Rodeo Ruby Love is a notable band. They have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." as it says in WP:MUSIC. Here are the articles I found, and am willing to find more if necessary.

Also they have "released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)", as it says in WP:MUSIC Here is their label, an Independent Record Label formed in 2007 with several notable performers signed on. They have released 3 albums on this label. Also I'm new here, I'm sorry if my layout or process was wrong. Here is a list of the notable performers.

  • Bandits of the Acoustic Revolution
  • Streetlight Manifesto
  • Sycamore Smith
  • Tomas Kalnoky

Nslvr (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just added a news coverage section on the Rodeo Ruby Love page to help with credibility issues. Nslvr (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the refs are not WP:RS it is still notable. in WP:BAND it says "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:" and Rodeo Ruby Love does meet one of the criteria. It has "released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)" which I stated evidence for above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nslvr (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, both Obscure Sound [1], Punknews.org [2] and NUVO's [3] articles and reviews are not user edited, neither are they blogs, so it fits that notability requirement too. Nslvr (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)- corrected my grammer error Nslvr (talk) 16:44, 15 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Arshad

[edit]
Hamza Arshad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable singer, fails WP:BIO and additional criteria WP:SINGER. Sources in the article are also of poor quality. SMS Talk 18:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 18:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough. The sources added in the article include a TV interview with HumTV and a report by City42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:01, 22 August 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 Discuss possible merge; discussion is against deletion.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Lick of the Old Cassette Box

[edit]
A Lick of the Old Cassette Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability. Unsourced, unreleased album with a claim it will be released as part of a re-release of another album. Google searches find practically nothing about it. noq (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now, there's no sense to rush to delete it if it could be notable within a couple of weeks. I have no prejudice against renominating in September or so if it is completely ignored, but the band's last five albums have charted, so I doubt that that will happen. Anyways, let's wait and see. Deadbeef 21:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply to that argument. And this is not going to be a standalone album but additional tracks on a re-release of another album. noq (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The release is confirmed. Let's see if coverage emerges over the next few weeks that would allow this to be expanded, or whether a merge elsewhere would be in order. --Michig (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fixed links to Industrial music. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dos Dedos Mis Amigos. This album is not notable, it lacks coverage. It is not a standalone album, it is being included as part of that other album. That it might get coverage is WP:CRYSTAL and even if it does its likely the coverage would be in the context of it being part of the Dos Dedos reissue. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have no objection to a merge to Dos Dedos Mis Amigos. A redirect there without any mention of it in that article would not make sense. It is a standalone album as it will be released on its own on vinyl. WP:CRYSTAL is all about details of unverified future events in articles, not editors' opinions in discussions. --Michig (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be ok, but leave out the sources and the bad dates. The only sources in the articles are sales pages which should not be used. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 30 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QuickRummy

[edit]
QuickRummy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MADEUP. There's no evidence in google that this exists - there are numerous 'quick rummy' variants but none of them are the same as this one and there's no way to establish that this particular variant has any more notability than any of the others (and by 'any more', i mean 'any at all') TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 20:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:55, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Energy Renewable Measurement

[edit]
Human Energy Renewable Measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite clearly an essay, with an underlying topic that is of...dubious notability. Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting would inhibit the sharing of knowledge and ideas. Wiki is not paper, and the subject matter is quite interesting. If the article doesn't conform to Wiki standards, re-write it; don't just arbitrarily delete it. —Terminator484 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Terminator484: the wiki is not paper, but that doesn't mean that we don't have standards - or that our standards are based around how interesting (or boring) a subject is. In this case, we have two problems; one can be solved by rewriting, as you note, and that is that the article in question isn't really an encyclopedia article - it's an essay containing lord knows how much original research. The second is that said essay may not, in fact, be notable. In terms of coverage under that term (Human Energy Renewable Measurement) I can find some podcasts, and the HERM site itself, but little more than that - and whether the article is rewritten or not, we expect it to conform to the notability policy. Ironholds (talk) 17:58, 17 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator was most generous in describing the notability of this topic as "dubious". Let's be clear: the topic simply isn't notable. Wikipedia is not a venue for unfettered sharing of knowledge and ideas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia consisting of articles on notable topics, and necessarily, it must exclude other content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete nothing in gnews or gbooks. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 25 August 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. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Tri Nguyen

[edit]
Johnny Tri Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability as either a martial artist or stuntman. There's also a lack of significant independent coverage. His movie roles consist of "Stunts" and "stunt double". Jakejr (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What notable events has he appeared in?Mdtemp (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a martial artist since he doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and appearing as an extra or a stunt man doesn't make him notable in the entertainment business. Significant reliable coverage is nonexistent.Mdtemp (talk) 16:09, 22 August 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. Please contact me so I can userfy the article.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir Latifi

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ilir Latifi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This MMA fighter's article was previously deleted. He still does not meet WP:MANOTE with only 1 top tier fight. That one fight (a loss) is the only change since the first deletion. Jakejr (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - to Shifter95. As an active fighter in a top-tier organization with a fairly well-sourced article, it's probably best to save the content for until/if he gets his third TT fight. Luchuslu (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy I started the first AfD which resulted in a result of delete. He still doesn't meet any notability criteria, but I'm willing to save the work in case he does get 3 top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 20 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had trouble deciding whether to vote to userfy or delete, but went with userfy because he's still signed with the UFC so he has a reasonable chance of getting the necessary top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 28 August 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. Moved to Jack's Bar-B-Que during discussion and expanded, and consensus supports keeping in that form. postdlf (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cawthon

[edit]
Jack Cawthon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Founder of single local restaurant. Notability not demonstrated for either him or the restaurant. Coverage in a pair of local news stories doesn't seem like enough to overcome the lack of demonstration of notability. Kithira (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He and his restaurant get local coverage. I even found a little coverage in the NY Times. It's not enough for me say notable, but this one isn't as clear cut as it would appear to be in first glance. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 13 August 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, Deadbeef 22:40, 15 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:48, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koei-Kan

[edit]
Koei-Kan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable martial art. My search didn't find significant independent coverage. Most coverage was not independent and the other coverage seems to just be a passing mention. Jakejr (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak keep - The topic appears to meet WP:GNG, although not by a gigantic margin per sources available via internet searches. Source examples include the two book sources listed in the article, along with: [56], [57], [58]. Shorter articles include [59], [60], [61]. Also, here's some mentions, (although these following sources don't serve to establish topic notability per Wikipedia's standards): [62], [63], [64]. Perhaps further Japanese reliable sources are available about this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles are significant coverage about this art. The fact that Chuck Liddell once practiced this art does not make it notable nor does an article on some teenagers getting their black belt nor do the passing mentions in the other articles. Getting a brief mention in a book that attempts to list every martial art in the world also doesn't do it. Jakejr (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear notable. The only sources given are a passing mention in a martial arts encyclopedia and a book by an instructor. Neither of these show significant independent coverage. The other sources I found are basically for various schools of this art, so they also are not independent. Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 20 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:46, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilram Choi

[edit]
Ilram Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and there's nothing to show he's notable as a stunt man. Appearing on a short-lived reality TV series does not show notability. Jakejr (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 16 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:45, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avenida Reforma

[edit]
Avenida Reforma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unable to establish WP:N using the english-language sources I am limited to. Only previous source was a forum posting. Regardless, poorly written and if kept may need to be stub-ified. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it needs sources and you haven;t the ability to find them, ask people who do know the language, rather than limit WP to the sphere of your own knowledge--none of us knows everything, but between us all, enWP covers the world. If what it needs stubbifying, it doesn't need deletion--Actually, it needs the opposite--it needs additional material. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major thoroughfare in a major capital city, don't see how it does not meet WP:NGEO. There's a very important avenue in Mexico City with the same name (I think), if it's anything like this one then it certainly is notable. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:12, 18 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 22 August 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. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Beaulne

[edit]
Philippe Beaulne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. the only coverage I found is one line mentions confirming he is ambassador to Romania. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can you please point to the notability guideline which says appearing in who's who means automatic notability? LibStar (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the multiple gnews mentions merely confirm he held the role in one sentence or less. they do not establish notability. I can find lots of one line mentions of my local police superintendent, that does mean we create an article about him. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
named in the headline because it merely confirms he was appointed or he is making a statement as a Canadian government representative. can you point to indepth sources about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, your comment is more laconic than mine. In any case, I see no compelling reason to rewrite all of the above discussion in my own words. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hardly convincing that you do the same thing at mulitple AfDs [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. blind voting indeed. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 27 August 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 Dorcus titanus--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcus titanus palawanicus

[edit]
Dorcus titanus palawanicus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sourced, valuable information that adds to Dorcus titanus Surfer43 00:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - nothing notable enough to stand on its own. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My inclination is to redirect this to Dorcus titanus. According to Google Scholar it is mentioned in K Kawano, Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 2006, "Sexual dimorphism and the making of oversized male characters in beetles", BioOne. James500 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:37, 22 August 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 Permanente Quarry.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cupertino quarry shooting

[edit]
Cupertino quarry shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Not really a well known event. I have relatives that live near where this happened, and most of them hardly remember this event ever happening. I also live in the Bay Area, in a place less than 2 hours from where this happened, and I can assure you not many people have heard of this shooting spree. It is not notable and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it can be merged to Permanente Quarry. It already has a mention on that page, and information on this event can be extended on that quarry page. Cyanidethistles (talk) 20:17, 11 August 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to something, probably Permanente Quarry or Cupertino, California. As a South Bay citizen, I assure you that many people who were in the area do remember this clearly, especially since it shut down practically the entire area (schools, businesses, even traffic) for days. That said, I don't think it had enough of a lasting impact to be a stand-alone article, but is worth mentioning on related article. Ansh666 02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, Permanente Quarry would be the perfect page for this event to be merged with. It already has a brief mentioning of this selfish shooting incident on that page, but it needs to be expanded soon. When I was discussing with people from the Bay Area online about past serious violent incidents that took place around here, the majority of them have never heard about a mass shooting that took place at a quarry in Cupertino. Some people in the South Bay may be familiar with it, as you said, but it's definitely not notable enough to be a stand-alone article. As you said, it definitely doesn't have much of a lasting impact. Cyanidethistles (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there has been some ongoing coverage, but it has been more of the "Do you recall tragic mass shootings a, b, c, d, e, and f?" variety. A merge would also be sensible. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Permanente Quarry, where it is already mentioned, and expand that info by a sentence or two (maybe develop a new section, "incidents" or something, that would mention this and other incidents at that plant that got press coverage: an explosion, an employee accidental death, etc.). This was an incident of workplace violence which has become sadly commonplace. The coverage was almost entirely local and lasted only a few days. The only followup item I found was the following month when the autopsy results were released. (For some reason many of the listings found in a Google News Archive search are displaying wrong dates - May 2011 (before the incident actually happened), February 2012, etc. - but the items are actually dated October 2011.) No lasting impact = no article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' to the article on the quarry and expand coverage there. Superman7515 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 22 August 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) 22:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germantown-Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia

[edit]
Germantown-Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such actual neighborhood exists. Sure, there is a region labeled on the phonebook map as such, but those are just two neighborhoods out of the many in that yellow section. JesseRafe (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, all the neighborhoods in this supposed neighborhood have their own pages, all better than this one, and this is also unnecessarily separated from and redundant to the Northwest Philadelphia article. Mainly saying there's nothing here that isn't anywhere else already, in addition to being an article about a thing that isn't a thing. JesseRafe (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but rename it to "Upper Northwest Philadelphia") - This is one of the 12 official planning districts according to the Philadelphia Planning Commission. If anything, "Northwest Philadelphia" should be renamed to this article, although Roxborough-Manayunk is another official planning district that is also in "Northwest Philadelphia". I didn't see anything official regarding "Northwest Philadelphia". I say keep both if they are both well sourced. It's just odd not to have the official district represented in the nav box as with other county boxes also show officially named sections of towns. --Minormadam (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that's the case, why is this so dreadfully unsourced? And why do results for "Germantown-Chestnut Hill" only result in addresses in Chestnut Hill on Germantown Avenue. JesseRafe (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok - I see the problem. The site that used to refer to this as "Germantown-Chestnut Hill" now refers to this as "Upper Northwest Philadelphia". I do see some real estate sites that still refer to this as "Germantown-Chestnut Hill", but the official designation on the "Philadelphia 2035" site now refers to it with a new name (I think the old name was still there last week). It's notable enough I believe to have a separate article to reflect the official designations. See Upper Northwest and Lower Northwest. The demographic, population numbers and density figures were published somewhere, but I lost the original source (it may have been a real estate website that had it).--Minormadam (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, there are now 18 official sections instead of 12.

They are now...

  • Central (existing)
  • Central Northeast (new)
  • Lower Far Northeast (new)
  • Lower North (existing)
  • Lower Northeast (new - probably the same as "Near Northeast")
  • Lower Northwest (new - the same as "Roxborough-Manayunk")
  • Lower South (new)
  • Lower Southwest (new)
  • North (existing - though the original borders have changed)
  • North Delaware (new)
  • River Wards (new - same as "Bridesburg-Kensington-Richmond")
  • South (existing - though smaller than the original South Philadelphia)
  • University Southwest (new - previously part of West Philadelphia)
  • Upper North (new - most likely the same as Olney-Oak Lane)
  • Upper Northwest (new - the same as "Germantown-Chestnut Hill)
  • Upper Far Northeast (new)
  • West (existing)
  • West Park (new)

This should be changed in the template as well.--Minormadam (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - These are planning artifacts, and not neighborhoods (although they contain neighbourhoods). I can find no significant coverage about this planning district as distinct from material about the consituent neighbourhoods. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 9 August 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 13 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 22 August 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GenealogyBank.com

[edit]
GenealogyBank.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per this book, About.com, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability. Fails for reliable sources. Most articles I find appear to be promotional in nature, or at the very least sponsored by the company. Also current appears as an advertisement, and not an article. Caffeyw (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the sources that I found? SL93 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of those listed 1)Book appears to be nothing more then a book listing various genealogy websites, 2)About is far from a RS, in fact looking at the page it looks like most of the information is company provided PR. The few portions that aren't PR are pure opinion about how the pros/cons of the website. 3)Might be the one of the three the could help provide notability, but from what I read it seems more like someone's opinion of the website. Bottom line 2 of the 3 are not RS, and the third provides little if any weight to being notable. Caffeyw (talk) 01:20, 16 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 22 August 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. Article fails WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 (no indication of importance, and overly promotional). CSD template removal was invalid because it was done by either the article creator under a sockuppet account or a meatpuppet. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karaoke In Bombay

[edit]
Karaoke In Bombay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, nothing to indicate notability. Appears to be promoting an individual (also nominated for deletion here) and/or an industry without any indication of notability. SQGibbon (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 August 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.
  1. ^ <http://www.obscuresound.com/albums/rodeo-ruby-love-the-pits-2013/>
  2. ^ <http://www.punknews.org/review/9684/rodeo-ruby-love-this-is-why-we-dont-have-nice-things>
  3. ^ <http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/review-rodeo-ruby-love-the-pits/Content?oid=2609218#.UgxgmJLXTQl>
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_22&oldid=1142632917"