Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 August	8 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition

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

The bulk of the list is populated from 2009 from the MAIG website itself. The list is continually be out of date, and is theoretically a very long list (They are claiming 1000+ members)

But more importantly in light of recent stories saying that MAIG is adding people to their list without actual permission, and refusing to remove people from the list, the inherent accuracy of the list is highly subject. Since the site is self published, and membership can be controvercial, this is a violation of WP:BLP "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject"

Finally Wikipedia is WP:NOT a membership directory. The noteworthy stories (mass resignations or joinings, or notable controversy) can be discussed in the MAIG main article. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP/MODIFY/RENAME/MERGE: There is some material in the latter sections of this WP page that should be kept, one way or the other. Those sections were obviously very time consuming to have assembled and referenced with MANY reliable newspaper article (third party) sources. I suggest that the article either be truncated (removing the out of date list) and renamed as "Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition Controversies" (or something similar), OR that those sections be merged into the main Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition article. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater would be a mistake and waste of many volunteer editorial hours. SoTotallyAwesome (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the later sections have more usable content, but think that they should be kept in narrative form, and not list. (And merged into the main article as "controversy" or "in the news" or something. IE, in the resignations, keep the paragraphs and drop the individual names - it will be too hard to keep track of who has joined, who has resigned, who has rejoined etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything connected with gun control gets occasional excited media coverage, but there is no indication that WP:LISTN is satisfied. Currently, the article appears to be a name-and-shame page (see List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition#Members convicted of illegal activity). If the list of mayors is on a website that is sufficiently reliable to serve as a reference for an article, there is no need for Wikipedia to mirror that list—who is on the list is simply not notable. Since, as explained in the nom, there is no reliable source for significant portions of the list, the article is inherently unverifiable. It might be argued that the article could list, say, 100 mayors who are verifiably current members of the group—however, there is no reason to think that a list of those 100 people satisfies WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least purge all entries not supported by independent references if not delete Delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a membership directory; also, membership in this organization is neither permanent nor one of the most salient facts about the people who have joined the group. Most significantly, this meticulously developed list has the earmarks of a "hit list" or "enemies list" (why else would the former mayors be highlighted in bold?) against an organization that has been vilified by gun rights advocates. Wikipedia is not a venue for maintaining and publicizing political enemies lists. --Orlady (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see the value of this list. Link to a list on the MAIGC website from the main article, and in the article cite and list the most prominent members only. Gamaliel (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the reasoning explained in the nomination, and agree with Johnuniq additional comments; my opinion is that this article qualifies for deletion per WP policies. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. And as for the section entitled 'Members convicted of illegal activity', contributors should familiarise themselves with WP:SYNTHESIS. Or find another platform for propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a need fora complete list - and a selection of officers in the organization/especially prominent members can be listed in the organization's article. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many of these are mayor of small boroughs and towns, thus not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 12 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Galvan

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

This page was created solely to support a lanugishing nomination at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates [1]

Delete The subject is a criminal who has no notability other than his re-arrest after release due to a clerical error. A simultaneous stub article was created at 2013 Moroccan protests which which has been nominated for merger. Neither stub stands on its own with content or notability.

Note that the !vote above is made by the nominator of this AfD,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as creator. There were a number of users that wanted an article made so I just simply made this stub. Anyway, I think this is highly notable actually as this guy is the reason to why national protests errupted in Morocco. WP:GNG should cover this basically.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 7. Snotbot t • c » 22:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. People asking for an article isn't a valid reason to create one. I shudder to imagine all the Bieber-related ones we'd have if that were so. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You comparing this articles subject with Justin Bieber making me think you do not understand its content? :) And yes to ask for creation of a potentially important event of a national level is valid. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we avoid the personal comments? Your effort is appreciated, but the material just doesn't support the article. It happens. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making this personal? Comparing Justin to a subject of a spanish paedophile and the protests he caused is just a very weak argument and I only commented on it to make a point. As we are on different sides of this discussion I would appreciate it if you took this less personal and more factual. A AfD is not to be won, it is to be discussed and discussions often have different opinions involved.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this personally. Neither I nor Clarityfiend mentioned you in our comments, yet you felt it necessary to warn administrators that I was the editor of my own comments and you referred directly to Clarityfiend and his supposed lack of understanding. None of that is called for; none of us is against you; please confine your comments to the merit of the article. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say dont take it personally, but still you manage to add insults into every comment you make towards me. I do not know how that add up. If you take an AfD that personally I suggest you do not make AfDs until you are ready to take that other users can have different opinions then you. AfDs are as I said made to get alot of different opinions and if I want to refute a claim made by another user within the context of an AfD that should be OK even if you take it personal. Please move on and stop having personal disputes on a AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The person is simply not notable. T C N7JM 10:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

neutral wouldn't mind a redirect a to the protests page.Lihaas (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect if 2013 Moroccan protests passes AfD). Not notable individual. The protests may or may not be notable: they have received some international coverage, but no indication of lasting impact, but they have a separate article anyway: 2013 Moroccan protests. Paedophile hysteria seems to be a national sport in certain nations, but just because people get hysterical over something doesn't mean we should cover it (there's your Bieber comparison). --10:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:GNG, could be redirected to 2013 Moroccan protests. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:14, 14 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. Secret ^account 21:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Moroccan protests

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

This page was created as a stub in conjunction with the ITN nomination of Daniel Galvan, a non-notable crimianl whose article has also been nominated for deletion

Delete This page has no notability of its own and was created to support the languishing Daniel Galvan at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. It has been suggested the article be merged, bt doing so gives neither article the notability to stand alone or together. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the !vote above is made by the nominator of this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this stub after I saw many requests for it. Anyway, these are highly notable protests. The nominators only rationale seems to be that the article that was created this afternoon is a stub and that it is nominated for deletion by the user who made the comment. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are to be commended for taking the initiative. Your effort is regardless of the eventual turnout. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I do not really care if these articles gets deleted or not. I only made the stubs because of the requests basically.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 7. Snotbot t • c » 22:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There are no apparent lasting repercussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lasting? Its been like a few days sir...:) And NOTNEWS? Wikipedia is based on news :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've said it yourself: "a potentially important event" and "it's been just a few days". If it becomes an actually important event, then it would deserve an article, not before. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy, by the way: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This, by the looks of it, just seems to be a newsworthy item that isn't notable enough for an article. T C N7JM 10:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep it needs expansion and that's not a reason for delete. Its notable as protests with repercussions, and weve had many of them.Lihaas (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably to early to make a judgment either way about this, yet. Further protests over the last 24 hours passed off peacefully, so this issue is still simmering, though perhaps calming down. Dolescum (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ready to close and delete. No material has been added since the stub was created, the related article on Galvan has been deleted and the creator has expressed his indifference to it. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 14 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. Secret ^account 23:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Peckham

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

Promotionally created by the subject and speedy deleted thrice previously, the first time as G12 copyvio and the second and third as A7 no significance indicated. The article in its current form is more beefed-out and I think warrants an AfD discussion. Quite simply, regardless of the claims made in the article, the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. There are plenty of hits on Google but they're all twitter accounts, facebook, linkedin etc. There is one questionable source, essentially a flashy bio page here and I've found a few copies/mirrors of that, but nothing else significant. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can only find one or two reliable sources that talk specifically about the article subject, which isn't enough to establish notability. 19:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. A Google News search for ("dominic peckham") turned up exactly one article, containing one sentence that mentioned Peckham. Google searches for ("dominic peckham") yielded nothing indicative of notability: a few news articles mentioning him, but nothing with any kind of independent in-depth coverage. The closest thing I found to coverage was a Scotsman piece, already cited in the article; and that gave much more coverage to the choir than to Peckham. Fails WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Ammodramus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:33, 13 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. Secret ^account 23:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Zito

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

Biographical article on a subject who does not meet notability requirements. All cited sources are either authored by the subject first-hand or about shows which the subject was in. It would seem the subject created and updates the page himself. Michaeld366 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources cited in the article meet the WP:GNG criterion of independent in-depth coverage. A Google search for ("mark zito") turned up nothing that would satisfy the criterion; refining it to ("mark zito" radio) in order to rule out hits pertaining to other Mark Zitos didn't yield anything more. A Google News search for ("mark zito" radio) produced only one hit, and it was about a different Mark Zito. The best I could come up with was a few articles from Syracuse University media; they didn't cover Zito in any kind of depth, and, in any case, coverage of a local media figure doesn't indicate wider notability. Ammodramus (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ammodramus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:36, 13 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) 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candela Hotel & Residences

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

Fails notability criteria for buildings (WP:GEOFEAT). Is a canceled project of no particular established importance. References limited to three primary sources and one self-published source (blog post). Ibadibam (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no particular evidence of notability. Two of the three references identified above as "primary sources" are self-published by entities associated with the project. --Srleffler (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NTEMP. This has actually received ongoing significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability on Wikipedia is based upon the availability of sources, and not based upon whether or not those sources are present in articles. Articles:

The Seattle Times
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Puget Sound Business Journal
The Stranger

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those sources. We should get them into the article asap. I'm still a little skeptical, though, that this establishes "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" per WP:GEOFEAT. Looks like fairly ordinary local coverage of a major construction project. Ibadibam (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. As Notheramerica1000 has noted, notability does not expire. The planned building was widely covered very substantially and was of architectural significance even though it is not expected to be completed as originally planned. The evolving development plan continues to be in the news and the history of its evolving design is well worth including. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify what the architectural significance is? I note that the Stranger piece mentions some elements, but comparing it to the articles in Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures in the United States, it doesn't seem to be nearly as significant. Yes, notability doesn't expire; I'm just on the fence as to whether the project was ever notable to begin with. As to the new plan, which is indeed receiving local coverage, it doesn't seem to be in scope for this article, which as it stands is about the canceled Candela tower. Perhaps we should revise this article to cover the new project instead, with a section on the canceled project? If the new project doesn't reach the 400ft cutoff for List of tallest buildings in Seattle, is it otherwise significant enough to establish notability? Ibadibam (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs updating. As the building is constructed it will certainly evolve. Given the location, the prior plans for a major skyskraper and hotel, the design with a thinner midsection (the architecture design history should be expanded, it wld be nice to get a better idea or even an image of what was planned, the size of the building, the history of the housing bubble bursting and the toll it took on the project, and the redworked project cumulatively add up to a very notable project that's been covered quite substantially. This is a major city, so when you say "local coverage" let's remember that if it was a planned skyskraper in NYC there would be little or no dispute over its notability. I would be surprised to find any major building project in NY that lacks an article. This would have been one of the tallest buildings in Seattle and from what I've sseen it's still a major development project that is receiving substantial coverage and will continue to receive more. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What trips me up is the WikiProject Skyscrapers guideline that says, "Every existing skyscraper should not have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory, and the majority of skyscrapers, high-rises, and towers are not notable enough to require their own pages." Under those guidelines, the original, 410-foot project would have made the List of tallest buildings in Seattle cutoff of 400ft and thus been notable. But because Candela has been canceled, it doesn't go on the list and so the Skyscrapers guidelines (which are entirely height-based) don't appear to apply. (Interestingly, the New York list cuts off at 600ft, so this project wouldn't have qualified for height-based notability had it been in New York.) Even so, I think the combination of its planned height and moderate architectural novelty may be enough to keep it, though I'd like to hear from somebody at the Architecture or Skyscrapers wikiprojects who has experience reviewing these types of articles.

As to the current project, I'll restate because I didn't put it well the first time around. The article we're discussing is not about the building being planned at this location. This article is about the building that was canceled, and we're debating its deletion strictly on the merits of the canceled project's notability. The new building is a separate topic that should be mentioned in this article, but this article probably shouldn't be changed to be about the new building. I think that can get its own article should it be notable enough (which at this point, it doesn't appear to be). Ibadibam (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources provided by Northamerica1000 are more than adequate to pass our guidelines, particularly WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Umm...the building was never built. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT; no secondary, independent RS. Miniapolis 13:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for joining the discussion, Miniapolis. Your arguments have been addressed above to some extent. See Northamerica1000's comment for a few reliable secondary sources. I believe we're also in agreement that WP:NTEMP applies here: notability can't be revoked because it wasn't built. The article isn't about a building anyway; it's about a plan. The question is, was it a notable plan? The deletionist in me says no, but we may have sources per GNG that make it a borderline yes. Ibadibam (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Because the sources are there. Note that Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures and Category:Proposed buildings and structures contain dozens of articles, not to mention Category:Fictional buildings and structures. The sources are what make it notable, whether it exists or not. WP:GEOFEAT should be updated to reflect that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 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) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and Northamerica1000. I personally worked on the article about that medal they were going to give to drone pilots in America that was news back in February but got canceled. Just because they never made any doesn't stop the topic from being notable, or in my case, even a GA. Dea db eef 08:19, 8 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 Microchip Technology. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI-TECH Software

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

Non-notable company, article lacks substantial coverage in third-party press. CitizenNeutral (talk) 07:08, 23 July 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) 18:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider Merge with Microchip Technology (acquirer). Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge the proposed merge seems reasonable; it's our usual practice. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 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) 16:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Microchip Technology - notability insufficient for separate article, but enough content for a section in the merge target.Dialectric (talk) 01:58, 10 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 Paris By Night#List of Paris By Night episodes. Secret ^account 21:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris By Night 70

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

There has been insufficient notability information provided, with no references or citations. The article has not been improved for verification. TRL (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paris By Night#List of Paris By Night episodes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 23 July 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, Wizardman 16:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article on episode of popular TV series. Alternatively, merging and redirecting to parent article or an article on the show's episodes would be okay too. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What makes this particular episode notable? It is unsourced, and as far as I can tell, there is no significant coverage about this episode. -- Whpq (talk) 10:29, 31 July 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) 16:01, 7 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Virtual Network Enabler

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

Article contains zero sources. It's possible that if they are notable, an article could be written, but in its current state of containing only OR, I believe it would be an improvement to delete it. Other comments on the Talk page confirm it would have to be completely re-written to be an acceptable article. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although just a bad article is not grounds alone for deleting the topic, since it often will get re-created as an even worse article. There is one in-line URL, to a page from 2006, around the time the article was created. It does seem this term is still in some use, although it seems to be a marketing buzzword, and each of those does not merit its own article. Another idea would be to merge this one and mobile virtual network operator into one named perhaps mobile virtual network which would talk about the concept as well as related buzzwords and acronyms. An admin could delete the bad one, move the remaining one over the redirect, and create new redirects. At the least, use lower case letters to indicate a concept article, not a proper noun, since every phrase than has been made into an acronym does not get capital letters in proper English. W Nowicki (talk) 16:54, 31 July 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) 16:01, 7 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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse health effects from lunar dust exposure

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

Contested prod. An essay or research paper is not encyclopaedic content and does not belong here. When I prodded the article I expressed concerns that it seemed to be an original essay synthesised from sources, however User:Alexbrn has since noted that it has been lifted word-for-word from a (pd) NASA document. Either way, it should either be moved to WikiSource, or more likely just deleted. W. D. Graham 10:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's un-encyclopedic/essay like, with possible original research. If its just copied directly from the NASA document then its better placed at WikiSource, or some content could be merged into Lunar soil which already has a small section on harmful effects of lunar dust. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article has issues, it is referenced and it is about a notable topic. If you conduct a quick search] you find plenty of academic papers about the topic: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] just from the first results page. All concerns about original research etc. can be solved by editing and, since deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, our deletion policy requires not to delete.-- cyclopia^speak! 13:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in this case it is beyond salvage, best practise would probably be to delete and let someone who wants to write an encyclopaedic article, rather than a research paper, have a blank slate. This is an encyclopaedia, not a journal. --W. D. Graham 14:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is not the topic, then it cannot be "beyond salvage" by definition. I agree with DGG below, but even if it was completely unsuitable, you could still use the sources as a useful startpoint for a rewrite. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it beyond salvage. it's not basically OR, though some is included, it could equally well be quoted as the recommendations of the authors of the report, since the report is a RS. ; there is not necessarily much distinction between a review article in a journal and a WP article, except that the WP article cannot itself make any judgment, but can only report it--as do , in fact, many published review articles. The question is the degree to which the review is overly technical, and the way to deal with that is sometimes abridgment. I would in fact strongly encourage qualified people to write material for journals with a free license in a manner that could be used here also. It's perhaps one of the best ways of enlisting expert authors, because in addition to the benefit of having contributed to WP, they also get the credit for a conventionally published article. And we've always used US-PD material, though of course it needs to be more exactly attributed in the article to show just what parts may have been added to or revised from the original. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fix it. This is certainly not beyond repair, and the subject is interesting and notable, as follows from the significant list of currently included references and content.My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it in Wikipedia, as a COPYVIO and research-paper essay, not an encyclopedia article. Move the source to Wikisource where it belongs. N2e (talk) 15:42, 3 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) 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and partially rewrite — This article definitely has quite a bit of potential, there are several reliable sources that are already used in the article, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more out there. AfD isn't cleanup, although the article could admittedly use a considerable amount, such as adding more refs to the "Exploration mission operational scenarios" section and removing inappropriate first-person words throughout the article. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 20:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did see several places where the first person was used "we..." but that's a reason for rewriting, not deletion. In reply to N2e, PD is short for "public domain," meaning not copyrighted. —rybec 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this just be called health effects from lunar dust exposure ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a copyright violation when excerpted sources are public domain; notable per sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it may not be a copyvio, but it is plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually it's a good article and I was happy when Google got me to it as I was searching for information about what this article is about. It surprised me to see that it's nominated for deletion. Not much of an argument but just to support the article which I really liked. Thank you. Megahmad (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, COPYVIO or plagiarism at best. Doesn't seem to be enough verifiable non-OR references to support article. Caffeyw (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is anyone going to clean this article? I only saw one minor edit since this article went to AFD and no one is dealing with the plagiarized content. Yes Wikipedia is not cleanup, but this is not an exception the way the article stands now. There is consensus to keep, but all of those arguments above are moot if the questionable content isn't rewritten or removed. Secret ^account 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the "plagarized" content PD-NASA? In that case, there is no cleanup necessary... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a notable topic, and the plagarism/copyvio concerns are not revelvant to copying from a PD source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good article, perhaps a bit wordy. Informative. Possesive Pronoun Problem: use of "our" implies WP, not NASA. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:50, 16 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 List of South Park cast members. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Hansen (voice actor)

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

A South Park staff member that also provided some voices in a few episodes. Not notable enough. Beerest355 Talk 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 July 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) 05:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of South Park characters. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, this isn't a character. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 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) 15:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of South Park cast members. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 15 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. There seems to be a consensus here that the subject is not notable by our standards. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pearmund Cellars

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

probably notable, but too promotional to rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep far too surmountable of a problem to warrant deletion. If you are unwilling to improve the article, you could identify the problems you have on the articles talk page for other editors to help address. RadioFan (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I don't see the article as promotional, but honestly, this is a medium-smallish production winery that hasn't garnered any significant reliable-source coverage beyond its local region. As someone with relatives in the business, I can say that if you have a winery operating for a decade or so, you're going to have some coverage somewhere, and this winery doesn't have any more than would be expected for any other non-notable winery. I'll add that this is why WP:WINERY was drafted, although it isn't an official guideline, it offers some sensible guidance in the context of wineries and what constitutes significant coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there has been local print coverage as well as interviews with the ABC affiliate in DC along with coverage in several books on wineries in Virginia and North Carolina.--RadioFan (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage doesn't suffice for WP:CORP. Especially for wine topics, coverage should be national or international. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would a review of their 2002 Viognier in the Oct 15, 2003 Wine Spectator satisfy that for you?--RadioFan (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:WINESOURCES for the reason, especially pertaining to Wine Spectator. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WINESOURCES really isn't that different that WP:GNG. It's looking for multiple reliable sources. So if I understand correctly a review in Wine Spectator, coverage in the local newspaper, an interview by the ABC affiliate in Nielsen market #8 and coverage in books both on both the Virginia wine business and the North Carolina wine business aren't enough for you. Am I understanding correctly?--RadioFan (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough for you"? Why make this personal? As explained clearly in WP:WINESOURCES, it's the nature of the business that just about every wine commercially sold will have a review in some reliable source; thousands of wines get reviewed in Wine Spectator, so a wine review there doesn't make a winery notable. Additionally, see WP:NOTINHERITED - notability is not inherited, so a notable wine doesn't necessarily imply a notable winery. As to local coverage, WP:CORP requires more than local coverage. As for books, it depends on the book; if it's simply a guidebook to wineries in Virginia (there aren't many wineries, so "coverage" is easy to come by), then no, such coverage obviously doesn't make the winery notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment language has been nuetralized a bit, additional references have been added and a copyvio from the company website has been removed. RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any article about this subject in particular or is it just noted along with other wineries in guidebooks? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of WP:SIGCOV from independent, non-local sources to support the idea that the winery has any kind of notability outside of it's small local region. If this was a local Virginia pizzeria there would be no doubt about the lack of notability. There is no reasons why wineries should be held to a lower threshold of notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This winery is notable and significant because of its place in a rapidly growing wine industry in the state of Virginia. It is among the older Virginia vineyards and wineries. The winery and its founder have played a significant role in the development of Virginia wine and influencing the regulatory process. There is also a very similar article for Barboursville Vineyards in Virginia.--Jlgorman24 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — Jlgorman24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A single-purpose account is expected to argue for keeping. You do realize that none of those points mean that the winery is notable?
- ...because of its place in a rapidly growing wine industry... - that's meaningless, and not a claim to notability.
- It is among the older Virginia vineyards and wineries -- not a claim to notability.
- ...played a significant role in the development of Virginia wine and influencing the regulatory process.' - that might make the winemaker notable, but not the winery. Notability is not inherited. I see nothing to indicate the winery played such a role.
- There is also a very similar article for Barboursville Vineyards -- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep this article. If that other article is also about a non-notable winery, then it, too, should be deleted.
You might have a case with the third point if you could provide any sources proving it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't call this a single purpose account simply because it has few edits. If you look a bit deeper you'll find that this account created the original article through the AFC process and has been working to improve it.--RadioFan (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A SPA is clearly defined, regardless of how few edits there are, and regardless of whether the author went through AFC. The fact remains, the account has a single purpose. Nothing wrong with that, but identifying such accounts in AFD discussions is helpful for the closing admin. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if there were independent, reliable sources showing that the Pearmund Cellars has "...played a significant role in the development of Virginia wine and influencing the regulatory process", I would consider that a sign of notability. I don't think it is a case of inherited notability since the founder/owner/winemaker is one in the same and is essentially the identity of the winery itself. If it was a hired winemaker then it would be different. But influencing the entire Virginia wine industry is a very strong claim and will need equally strong support from reliable sources. The article currently doesn't have this support and looking online as well as checking several respected books on American wine is not turning up any support either. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A book on North Carolina wine mentions a Yadkin Valley winery going to Pearmund Cellars for guidance.--RadioFan (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from first-hand knowledge, while winemakers compete in business, they still interact with one another as colleagues. One winemaker getting advice from another winemaker isn't unusual. I don't see how that can possibly suggest notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:36, 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) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for all the comments pointing out the importance of referencing published material for an article. Growing industries that impact the economy of a state and region and have documented expansion potential should be important and significant encyclopedic material. The contributing businesses and people in that industry should also be well documented. A business and it's founder, who have been listed as significant contributors in multiple published books and independent news reports, in an industry recognized by a published Governor's report as having significant economic impact to the state and region, seems like it is worthy of having an article. I purposely left out published promotional type material in the original article in order to focus on the winery's place in the Virginia wine industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlgorman24 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A run-of-the-mill promotional article created by a single-purpose-account, no notability outside of routine local coverage, thus a failure of WP:N. Just another day at AfD... Tarc (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All editors here are encouraged to remember not to bite the newcomers. RadioFan (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not bitey to identify an SPA. It is what it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete If you're expecting me to copywrite your adverts, how much are you paying? Notability is probably enough to justify an article (if appropriately written), but if shills can't be bothered to follow our corporate styleguide, I'm not here to do their work for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any competent medium-sized winery will be mentioned in one paragraph tourist guide listings, described in local media and have their wines reviewed in the Wine Spectator and other wine publications that publish thousands of reviews a year. This is run of the mill stuff that doesn't rise to the level of significant coverage. That's the kind of coverage that I found when I searched for sources. On the other hand, I learned that the owner, Chris Pearmund seems notable. He owns several wineries, is active in trade groups, and consults for other wineries. So, until this winery achieves notability, it would be best to have a biography of him, and redirect the winery name to his article. By the way, the ABC affiliate TV interview doesn't even discuss this winery. Pearmund discusses his career, the Virginia wine industry, and his other business ventures.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the "deletes" seem to agree notability has been shown; content disputes are not handled by deleting the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? Precisely ONE (Dingley's "Notability is probably enough...") call to delete is of the nature you describe. Do not misrepresent one editor's opinion and attempt to say all the rest are just like that, when they clearly are not. That is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, after your comments about Malleus at the Science Apologist AN thread, I don't think you should be accusing others of "intellectual dishonesty". Joefromrandb (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well Joe, strawman arguments won't distract from the fact that you just lied about the basis of most ever delete vote in this discussion. Thankfully, it is so blatant and so obvious a lie that it should not affect the final outcome. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Strawman" is indeed the correct Wikipedia response to being called on bullshit; at least you deserve credit for not blue-linking to it. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb I did not concede notability. To the contrary. I made a good faith search for significant coverage in reliable sources, found only brief mentions, and concluded that the winery is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now if that little sidebar is finished, I'll add that WP:WINESOURCES is not part of any guideline or policy and until it is, it should have no bearing whatsoever on any AfD. In fact, it should probably be considered deprecated as it's been stale for roughly 3 years. This article meets WP:GNG. And for safe measure, let me add that my !vote is based on the article clearly meeting GNG and not what anyone else said or didn't say. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, Tarc has omitted that even the nominator agrees that the article is notable. But I guess I'm "lying" about that too. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator agrees to no such thing. "Probably notable" is not equal to "is notable." I agree with Tarc, that's a mischaracterization. Also, Joefromrandb has apparently not looked at WP:WINESOURCES closely enough. It is not an official guidance, but it was carefully derived from official guidance in the context of wine. If you have a problem with that document, or suggestions for improvements, you are invited to contribute your views on the talk page. Simply asserting that the winery meets WP:GNG doesn't make it so. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to contribute to WP:WINESOURCES; it's simply nonsense intended to aid deletionists and thankfully isn't part of any policy or guideline. And yes, "simply asserting the winery meets WP:GNG" does not make it so. The fact that the winery meets WP:GNG makes it so. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Joe, neither you nor the other "keep" voters (or the article, itself, for that matter) has demonstrated that the winery meets WP:GNG. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so, if that "fact" was evident. What is abundantly clear is that the sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV. And false allegations about other Wikipedians motivations serves only to weaken the rest of your arguments. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Tarc's false allegations weaken his argument. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Enough. Let's forget about calling other editors "deletionists" and concentrate on the notability of Pearmund Cellars. One of the problems for me is that some of the sources presented are offline, so it's hard for me to verify that the coverage of them is reliable and significant. However, a quick search through reveals that iUniverse, History Press and Apprentice House appear to all be self published sources, and the USA Today source has a passing mention to the vineyard. I haven't checked all 16 sources in depth, but it looks like all the others are on the same lines - promotional, not really significant coverage. When they've got coverage in things like this, we can talk about an article, but until then there's not really enough to make an encyclopedia article out of this, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:58, 13 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 on whether this meets notability guidelines or not. Secret ^account 21:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tuttle

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

Non-notable musician lacking GHits and GNEws of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How exactly does he fail WP:BIO? Probably the easiest test to apply is Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Others (to which WP:BIO#Entertainers of course links with the comment See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.) which reads 6. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. The two hymns listed in the article both appear in many contemporary hymn books; They are the worship music equivalent of jazz standards. There are several other criteria that could also be applied, but that's the easiest one to verify. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure that being included in a couple of Hymn books constitutes compliance with this guideline. It shows potential popularity, but not that these are necessarily standards. reddogsix (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two are major hymnaries, in different countries. What evidence would you expect, in this genre? Andrewa (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something that meets Wikipedia guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which this does, see above. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The claim regarding ghits above is in contrast to the searches I supplied at Talk:Carl Tuttle#Contested deletion, and my request there for links didn't produce any evidence in reply either, so far. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The response is there. reddogsix (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but still with no links, and the figures you claim don't match those of the searches for which we do have links. Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do, see the talk page comment. reddogsix (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your latest updates which do (at last) include details of your searches. I have replied there. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do make mistakes, but I think I've given the editors who have proposed first a PROD, then a declined speedy, and now this AfD, ample chance to explain their reasons for regarding Tuttle as non-notable. We now have two reliable dead-tree sources that include his bio (see article and talk). He may be no John Lennon, but in his genre he's a person of considerable interest and renown, he satisfies WP:BIO as described above (and if he didn't, it would suggest that the guideline needed a tweak, see article talk), and the current version of the article (of which I am of course the creator) is a useful stub. Andrewa (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does one source (regardless of type) adequately support the article (meet the notability guidelines) - probably not. It should be noted that we are not able to establish the substance of the that reference - neither of us have access to the pay site. The establishment of a lyric or youtube vid does not meet the criteria of WP:RS, it may serve to establish popularity, but popularity does not equal Wikipedia based notability - hence the difference in number of valid supporting reference - my one versus your two.

I am not counting pages to establish or deny notability, I am looking at the substance of the GHits - none of which are non-trivial or of substance. If I have missed references of substance, please add them in and I shall support its inclusion.reddogsix (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing several different things here so far as both the facts and policies and guidelines go... can you be specific as to why this article should be deleted, in terms of policy (with link(s) to the specific section(s) please)?

As an example, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence reads in part Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I interpret this to mean that a single source is adequate for the purposes of verifiability (although of course more is better). That's the sort of reference to policy I'd like to see for your claim above that Tuttle is non-notable, and also for your speculation that one source may not be enough. As another example, see the quote above in response to your relatively vague claim that he fails WP:BIO, suggesting that he doesn't fail it at all.

The one source given in the article is not a pay site, it's a book, I own a copy and it's available from many sources as far as I can see by following the ISBN link. You can even browse a little of the contents I see, have you tried this?

The paid website is just an alternative means of accessing a second dead-tree source, mentioned on the talk page, and I can't see any problem in getting it eventually and adding it to the article in due course (again, this confidence is partly by following the ISBN link), but frankly don't see the hurry. Again, it gives verifiability.

If we deleted every article that depends on sources which aren't either available online or in your personal library, I suspect we'd lose an awful lot. That's not what verifiability means at all. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading too much into my comment - admittedly, I have led you astray with my comment about "paysite." I do not believe the article meets WP:ENTERTAINER nor that it is supported by adequate reliable sources. (I do not believe a single book source combined with the lyrics is adequate.) As far as my "paysite" comment goes, I misread you comment to say the article reference was behind a "paysite." I do not question your cited reference, nor do I propose we delete, "...every article that depends on sources which aren't either available online or in your personal library."reddogsix (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've now expressed a personal opinion that one source isn't adequate, in response to my citing a policy that seems to indicate that it is. And you've now said that you don't think Tuttle meets the notability guideline for Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities, none of which he is, and ignored the guideline I cited above. If that's not bad enough, the very guideline you do cite also links to the one I cited [7] saying See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.... and of course that's exactly what Tuttle is. How could you miss that? I'm sorry, but I have to say that I think you are now just wasting our time.

I made a bad mistake in saving the article to the article space when it was PRODable (I was on a shaky connection at the time and didn't want to lose my work if it dropped out, but I should have saved it to user space instead). But that valid PROD was validly answered. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. Wasting your time. That's a little harsh is it not. If you believe discussion is a waste of time, my apologies. Yes, I voiced an opinion, not as an absolute, but as somewhat a question. I have not seen you provide evidence that a single reference is adequate but since we seem to have reached an impasse, I suggest we just disagree and let the AfD be decided by others. My best to you.reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that a single reference is adequate is above: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence reads in part "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I interpret this to mean that a single source is adequate for the purposes of verifiability (although of course more is better). [8]

I do apologise to you and the community for commenting here on your behavior. That is another bad mistake on my part; Here is not the place for it.

And I agree that we seem to have reached an impasse rather than consensus, and I regret that too. See User:Andrewa/discuss. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search reveals the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We normally accept inclusion in anthologies as notability, and there is no limitation to sources that are free on line, rather than paid or print. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 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) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a poor stub, but his role as a worship leader in the original Vineyard Fellowship suggests considerable notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am curious, how does becoming part of the worship team support notability? reddogsix (talk) 16:41, 11 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. Please observe WP:ATD in the future and deal with merging or renaming through normal processes, not AFD (and note that WP:NOTLIST is not a thing). postdlf (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Burlington, Vermont history

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

Listing from various texts should be merged into appropriate history articles, "Burlington#History or a separate "History of Burlington." This fails WP:NOTLIST, is not particularly informative, and competes, rather than enhances other history articles. Student7 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly reasonable article with many sources. Consider moving to "History of Burlington" and expanding—but this is not necessary. 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
REname to History of Burlington. This may encourage someone to fill it out into a narrative article. Merging to Burlington#History would unbalance that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 11 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. Secret ^account 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Smith

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

Delete. Seems not to meet WP:BASIC. I didn't find even a single source which seems to meet WP:RS. Mr. Smith is the founder of Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions and an amateur weightlifter. (Pegasus has already had its article deleted by unanimous agreement of five editors.) Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 July 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) 15:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, not finding the reliable sourcing here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:02, 8 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 Firth. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men from Up the Stairs

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

Unremarkable animation. No citations that demonstrate notability. Entire article is just a plot summary. Either delete or merge with David Firth. — Richard BB 10:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Firth. Non-notable web animation; I can't find any suitable reviews or serious discussion to meet notability requirements for films/TV. WP:NOTPLOT would suggest that merging the plot summary might not be necessary or a good idea, since I don't think Wikipedia is required to carry unreferenced plots of non-notable works. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 31 July 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) 15:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Constipation cartoon has no coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:47, 7 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) 19:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya

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

Fails to comply with notability guidelines for books as the book has not been shown to be a subject of multiple published works that comply with WP:RS.
Additionally, the article's creator and main editor has most likely a conflict of interest: User:Ghanonmatta seems to be Ragini Trivedi or a person closely associated with her, judging from contribution history and highly promotional edits: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc., etc.

kashmiri ^TALK 19:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We're supposed to apply some common sense to our interpretation of guidelines. For an American journal to publish an extensive review of a book in Hindi that doesn't have an English-language translation, and to describe the book as "the most complete, authoritative work ever published on the history of Indian musical instruments", is about as strong a demonstration of notability as you can get. Perceived conflict of interest is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the issue of deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These words only mean that the book was notable in 1974. As per WP:NTEMP, we have full right to reassess the continuity of notability now, 39 years down the line. Note also that one swallow doesn't make a summer and one review doesn't make a book notable (per WP:BK). kashmiri ^TALK 13:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are reversing the meaning of WP:NTEMP. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Still, notability of this book can easily be questioned even as of 1974 since that was just one review. I've proposed deletion per notability - feel free to prove the book is notable. kashmiri ^TALK 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to look at quality as well as quantity of sources when deciding about notability, but, as you seem insistent on applying some magic formula that says "two sources good; one source bad", I've cited another reliable source that has a page and a bit of coverage of this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me who put the word "multiple" in WP:BK, sorry. Your second quote does not fulfil the criteria - it's just a cursory mention of the book which doesn't mean it's notable. See, there are millions of books and articles that are mentioned or listed in bibliography by other books and articles; but notability criteria stipulate that it's more than that. kashmiri ^TALK 06:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a cursory mention, but a page-long discussion of the book, i.e. significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In that case, we are getting closer to establishing notability of the book. kashmiri ^TALK 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, when you said, "it's just a cursory mention", you were just guessing? That's not the way to conduct a good-faith discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 28 July 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, Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 31 July 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) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per sources. Also found this sentence in the magazine Sangeet Natak: "This term was originally coined by Pandit Lalmani Misra in his book Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya." It's a "snippet view" so can't link, and can't see what the term is(!), but seems important a term was coined in the book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consider these. On this page in discussion about lineage of Sarod, Dr. Indrani Chakravarty's paper: "Sarod, its origin and evolution" makes reference to Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya at several places -- referred to in short as (Bha. Son. Vadya p. 49), (Bha. son. Vadya p. 50) etc. This is borne out by opposite view in discussion on Sarod stating: "The rebab was modified by Amir Khusru in the 13th century. Dr Lalmani Misra opines in his Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya that the sarod is an amalgamation of the ancient chitra veena, the medieval rebab and modern sursingar". Trayansha (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Trayansha[reply]

Thanks, but a brief reference to a piece of writing does not make it notable. kashmiri ^TALK 20:28, 12 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. Secret ^account 21:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Léo Costa (Musician)

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

Looks like he fails WP:NMUSIC. I can't find evidence he performed with any of the listed artists except Everlast, and I don't see any independent reliable sources that cover him. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- fails WP:GNG & WP:NMUSIC, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am extremely concerned at the level of bad faith shown by some of our editors relating to this page. We are struggling with new editor retention and one sure fire way to scare them off is to hammer them and their articles with multiple warnings as soon as they put up their first articles. This article has been on Wikipedia for 2 days and has been subjected to two CSD nominations, neither of which were valid (A1, A7), had references removed to restore a BLP-PROD (!) [14] and has been tagged as a hoax... when it's clear from a simple google search of "Leo Costa Everlast" that he is indeed a professional drummer who has played with Everlast. Looking at the article, it's painfully obvious that it has been written by an inexperienced editor who doesn't know the ins and outs of WP policy. In situations like these, it is usually more appropriate to help to improve the article if possible and to provide mentorship, rather than ganging up on them and smacking them down for daring to write a WP article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: is indeed correct which is why I've striked!, Instead of helping, We've all been stupid & WP:BITEY!, Although I disagree with the article again we should help not bite!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this musician has played in two major bands, so he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 5 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) 15:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This (auto?)bio falls short of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Being a session muso or touring batera is not the same as being a member of a notable ensemble. Lacks evidence of being a member of any so fails WP:MUSICBIO]]. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would tend to agree... The author has been given enough time to demonstrate notability and sufficient information on how to do so. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:47, 11 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 List of social activities at Durham University. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Union Society

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

Article fails to meet notability criteria under WP:CLUB, WP:ORG or WP:UNIGUIDE. Mentions from independent sources (mostly national papers) are extremely sporadic and mostly indirect being based around controversial events every 5-10 years. No mentions in books since 19th Century. Prokhorovka (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to List of social activities at Durham University with a mention in the main article. This is arguably the most important society in an important university. However there simply isn't enough sourced content to justify its own page. The notable alumni list is wholly unsourced that the members belonged to this society and half the article consists of unencyclopaedic admin arrangements. The sourced content can be sensibly merged. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I must admit I agree with the above, but didn't realise initially you could propose a merger instead of have it happen as part of an AfD. The society isn't notable in itself, but the entire Union is and the society is a relevant part of it for that article, similar to the Manchester Debating Union on the University of Manchester Students' Union page. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Prokhorovka (talk · contribs) is the nominator of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:57, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:58, 7 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbro Tuckers

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

Delete for lack of notability. All coverage seems to be incidental, except for the book that Peter Tucker wrote for friends and family. The 129 page book by Peter L. Tucker, The Tuckers of Sierra Leone, 1665-1914, was published about 1997, but there is no publisher or place of publication data for it, see OCLC 43918024. It looks like a vanity press publication, but it is unclear as no copies were available to me on interlibrary loan. The reference section of the article looks as though the editor/author mostly took the list of book citations from a Google book search of "Tucker + Sherbro" and "Caulkers + Sherbro" and dumped it in the reference section. The specific entries add very little, for example, the entry http://books.google.com/books?id=zmgYSuOAkS8C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=sherbro+caulkers&source=web&ots=GZBht_Ev8Y&sig=jrOlgtRVvS8nSk_DqQU8c7MynI8 has no mention of the Tuckers, but has language about the Caulkers that is used by the author/editor to describe the Tuckers in the article. The entry http://books.google.com/books?id=npUMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=sherbro+tuckers#PPA76,M1 has only this to say about the Tuckers: This is also true of the Tuckers and many others on the west coast of Africa. namely that they had English blood on their paternal side. Or this one http://books.google.com/books?id=QN62ci99H7oC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=sherbro+tuckers&source=web&ots=OGbmgW5H6K&sig=o0Hqg0eXHI6HQ5RL-cyliu1HHhI#PPA293,M1 which only says: They, like the Tuckers and the Clevelands, were descendants of European slave dealers, and their pursuits were the same. Some don't discuss the family, but just a specific Tucker, such as http://books.google.com/books?id=C4GuwL1cgnEC&pg=PA36&dq=Sherbro+Cleveland&sig=rsRwn1MsjXJAHkXDy8x7J-J5tDg which talks about Henry Tucker, the notorious slave trader. Based upon extensive searching and review of the available sources, I am not convinced that the family is particularly notable, although the Sherbro and their activities are. They have their own article. Some individual Tuckers have their own articles. --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 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) 16:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important and significant group in the history of Sierre Leone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why, then, is there no significant coverage? --Bejnar (talk) 15:52, 2 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) 14:56, 7 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Rigby

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

Not-notable. GHits consist primarily of press releases, no significant GNews hits (mentioned in passing in articles on SCC), no GBook hits. Father is apparently notable, but notability is not inherited. Article by SPA. GregJackP Boomer! 15:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. There are multiple references attesting to notability. Is CEO of Europe's largest independent tech group and senior figure in UK's 13th largest privately owned investement company. Iainsbruce 14:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 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) 16:43, 31 July 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) 14:55, 7 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) 17:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SGE Mühendislik

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

Sources mostly seem to consist of trivial or incidental coverage of the subject. Therefore it appears to fail WP:CORP. nn. Taroaldo ✉ 00:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:50, 24 July 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) 17:27, 31 July 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) 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 12 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 The Cleveland Show (season 2). Taking into consideration the previous discussion, I have no doubt that further relistings will return this same result. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Walk!

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

Little to no real world significance. No evidence that this is a notable episode of a TV show. Beerest355 Talk 14:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cleveland Show (season 2) just like last time around the ferris wheel. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 12 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. Secret ^account 23:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcebits

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

Completing nomination on behalf of Minskdreamer, who posted the following rationale on the article's talk page. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources accompanying are not reliable enough as they are self-published (4 out of six links are to the company's own website). Besides violating WP:NCORP it looks like an attempt to promote a company WP:SELFPROMOTE WP:ADVERT Minskdreamer (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising (G11). That is, unless they're somehow much more notable than they appear. Even a client list really should have an independent citation. §everal⇒|Times 13:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:17, 12 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) 17:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AEON (electromagnetic)

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

Promotion by Jan W. Vegt of his own pet theory. No evidence that anybody else has even noticed it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promotional article. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working in the field of the interaction between radar beams and matter. It is very difficult to find a publication about the subject Electromagnetic Interaction because it is always classified as confidential for military reasons. No army wants their radar beams to be deflected by any kind of equipment. I was surprised to see this article. The mathematical background looks OK to me. For the field where I am working in, nobody is interested in the interaction between electromagnetic fields and gravity. It has no practical applications. But the interaction between radiation and electromagnetic fields is much more interesting. For that reason I suggest to keep this information for public access... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold25 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just did a drastic rewrite. —rybec 19:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your effort and work Rybec. I would suggest in stead of ref 2(where all the equations are missing) this link: Electromagnetic Confinement

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimvegt01 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: From what I can glean from the actual content, it looks like AEON is basically a neologism created and used by exactly one person, which is not inherently notable according to the wp:notability guidelines. Even if this is useful research that should be publicly available, I am not sure that wikipedia is the right place for that. I was under the impression that a theory had to be widely accepted or widely known about for it to be notable enough for inclusion into the encyclopedia. Otherwise it's basically just promotional. That said, I could be misunderstanding the policies, and if it can be rewritten to be more informational and to include sources other than ones associated with the idea's originator, or if it actually is notable and I am just ignorant of the context, then it should probably be kept. --anamedperson (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the idea is not a notable, worthwhile idea in itself, just that the sources haven't demonstrated notability in the world at large, and using wikipedia to promote even a good idea is still promotional. --anamedperson (talk)

Comment: Dear Adirlanz... Thanks for your comment. It is not a subject on which only one person is working. The subject gets more attention in e.g. Russia than in U.S. because there it is military classified. One person who is involved in that subject is Volodymyr Krasnoholovets. He also calls Vegt in his references. (Ref. 28 en Ref. 29 in the publications below.

Krasnoholovets, Volodymyr (2001). "On the Way to Submicroscopic Description of Nature". Quantum Physics. 49 (2): 81–95. arXiv:quant-ph/9908042. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4824. On the Way to Submicroscopic Description of Nature

Krasnoholovets, Volodymyr (2001). "On the nature of spin, inertia and gravity of a moving canonical particle". Indian Journal of Theoretical Physics. 48 (2): 97–132. arXiv:quant-ph/0103110. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4824. On the nature of spin, inertia and gravity of a moving canonical particle

--anamedperson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold25 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about the Krasnoholovets papers was added by Harold25 (now blocked as a sock of Wimvegt01), not by Adirlanz, who also signs as "anamedperson." I checked the whois data for aeons.eu and the site is operated by Jan Vegt. —rybec 15:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold25 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIC this is currently a dictionary definition -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Krasnoholovets also refers to Vegt in his references. (Ref. 7) in the publication below.

Krasnoholovets, Volodymyr (2002). "Gravitation as deduced from submicroscopic quantum mechanics". High Energy Physics - Theory. arXiv:hep-th/0205196. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Gravitation as deduced from submicroscopic quantum mechanics --Harold25 (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic does not seem to be notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: add this article the the reference list:

J. A. Armstrong; N. Bloembergen; J. Ducuing*; P. S. Pershan (1962). "Interactions between Light Waves in a Nonlinear Dielectric". Physical Review Letters. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.127.1918. Interactions between Light Waves in a Nonlinear Dielectric --Wimvegt01 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN neologism. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 12 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) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic entity

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

Essentially this is Jan W. Vegt promoting his own theory. At best, this page should become a disambiguation page pointing to Geon (physics), which seems to be a well-established concept, and AEON (electromagnetic) which is a neologism and which will probably be soon the subject of an AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working in the field of interaction between radar beams and matter. It is very difficult to find any article about this subject because of military confidential applications. No doubt that the interaction between radar beams and matter has an electromagnetic origin. That's why I appreciate a contribution to Electromagnetic Interaction. It's about the only article I can find about this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold25 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I only looked at the abstract of the Wheeler paper. I don't see the term used in quite that way, in the abstract: it mentions gravitational-electromagnetic entities. If it's only used by Vegt, it could just be mentioned in the AEON (electromagnetic) article, if that article is to be kept. Does anyone reading this have ready access to Wheeler's full paper?

I noticed that Harold25 (talk · contribs) is a new account, with no edits before today. —rybec 21:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first article about Geons was published in 1955 in Phys Rev Letters GEONS -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimvegt01 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 8 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the third line in that abstract is written: "Such gravitational-electromagnetic entities, or "geons"; are analyzed via classical relativity theory" -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimvegt01 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment this seems like a glorified dicdef. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The paper by Wheeler that supposedly originated the phrase "electromagnetic entity" does not, in fact, contain that. It does discuss geons, for which there is already a separate article. So this would seem to be original research. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and misleading. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 12 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. No prejudice towards a discussion about a merger. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man of Korea

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

There is not even claim to notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources noted above. A merge to Sung Jae-ki might also be worth considering and discussing. The Deletion discussion template does not appear to be at the top of the article page? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is some English coverage that I can find through web searches: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. It looks like the leader of the organization jumped off a bridge in a "publicity stunt gone wrong"... Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If something's more prominent in a different region, for example, Korea, you should check The Wikipedia page for that region's language. The Korean page indicates to me that the English article can be a quality encyclopedia entry. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:43, 7 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. There is no consensus whether the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Baker

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author. Claiming that he's a professional soccer player. This is the same argument we, for some reason, continue to have with almost every article that has been deproded. Indoor soccer is not fully pro. – Michael (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, he did play in a fully professional soccer league.^[20]^[21] To claim otherwise is puzzling. Mohrflies (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that he did when in reality, he didn't, is puzzling. Those sources are not going to cut it. – Michael (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I gave were legitimate sources. However, if they don't convince you, do these?

1980 New York Times article about Cosmos wanting to play in the MISL. First, the Cosmos at their height in 1980 were going semi-pro? I never knew that. Second, why was the New York Times doing a big article on a semi-pro athletic league?^[22]
1982 New York Times article regarding a new MISL player contract with the league. According to the Times, this none professional league made an agreement that "club owners will retain television revenues and the players will receive higher salaries, per diem, termination pay and playoff revenues. Minimum salaries were increased to $2,000 a month." What are these non-professionals doing making a minimum of $2000 per month?^[23]
1984 New York Times article on NASL teams moving to MISL, which had a "television network contract" and required the NASL teams to post a "$400,000 entry fee and a $250,000 letter of credit."^[24]
1984 New York Times article about the Phoenix Pride selling the contracts of the last nine players on the team after losing $2.2 million. How could the team sell contracts for players who weren't getting paid? And how did a team that didn't have professional players lose $2.2 million in a year?^[25]
1986 New York Times article about MISL teams refusing to release players for the World Cup. Best quote, "The M.I.S,L. team owners contend that the players have contracts and that their first duty is to their teams." What contracts? They were a bunch of amateurs. They could just get some time off from their day jobs, quit those non-professional teams and go play in the World Cup.^[26]
1986 New York Times article about team-owner rebellion against league commissioner. Best quotes: "Stern said he had done his part in cutting back on high-priced players." What high-priced players? They were a bunch of non-professionals.^[27]
1986 Chicago Tribune article about an MISL player's contract. I had no idea a non-professional soccer player could pull down $80,000-$90,000 a season.^[28]
1987 New York Times article about some guy playing in the MISL who keeps talking about how he is a professional soccer player. Odd.^[29]
1987 New York Times article on failure of the New York Express. The team planned to go public (sell stock like Manchester United just did). Sounds pretty amateur to me.^[30]
1989 LA Times article about the collapse of the Los Angeles Lazers. Good quote: "Lazer (and Los Angeles Lakers) owner Jerry Buss, who has reportedly lost more than $7 million on the franchise since its inception." What is a big-time professional sports guy like Jerry Buss doing losing millions on some semi-pro team?^[31]
This weird article from 1990 states, "There are currently two professional leagues in operation, the more commonly-known Major Indoor Soccer League . . ."^[32]
According to the Baltimore Sun in 1991, "Hale said he wants to invite all nine members of the NPSL into the MISL. "We would be the largest professional soccer league in the country if all nine teams came in," he said. However, Hale said he doesn't expect all nine NPSL teams to meet the "requirements" of the MSL. One of the main stumbling blocks to a consolidation of NPSL teams with the MSL is the difference in salary caps between the two leagues. The MSL has a team salary cap of $755,000; the NPSL cap is about $300,000. MSL players have been asked to take sizable pay cuts over the past three years and probably would protest further reductions." What I don't understand is how all the players on these teams have professional contracts when they aren't professionals.^[33]
Here's the point, nobody with any knowledge of the MISL would claim it was not a fully professional league. To first make that claim, then to dismiss soccer historians such as Colin Jose, Dave Litterer, Roger Allaway and Steve Holroyd, whose reputations far exceed any of us, with the flippant phrase, "Those sources are not going to cut it" shows a profound arrogance. So, I've put up my sources. Now, put up your sources showing the MISL was not professional. Mohrflies (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Player's career was during the time he played in the league, which was the highest level of American soccer due to the outdoor leagues not catching on at the time. No problem found here. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at WP:FPL? Doesn't matter if it was the highest level of American soccer at the time, it's not fully pro. – Michael (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mohrflies points. Judicatus | Talk 19:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indoor soccer players were not making a living just from that and the MISL is not in the list of "fully professional leagues".204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mohrflies Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to continue the practice that the highest level of national competition in a major nation must be fully professional to qualify the players for an article. This biases our coverage of the sport to those countries where it is professional, instead of giving world-wide coverage like we're supposed to. This is the first time I've used the Cultural Bias argument to argue cultural bias against the US, but I see no reason to use it only in the other direction. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment I'm relisting this because in all the arguments about whether the MISL is a professional league, GNG seems to be being ignored. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is indeed a tricky one; The league he played is was a fully pro as a lot of the leagues listed at WP:FPL was in the 1980s, as they became professional in the beginning of the 1990s. And we do consider amateur players as notable, if they played in a league that later became professional during the "amateur era", but this league became defunct before it turned fully pro. But regardless of the status of the league, we should examine whether or not this subject passes WP:GNG, but that isn't easy without access to offline sources. Even though the sources in the article isn't enough to pass WP:GNG, I believe there are more sources out there to be notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. The MISL is the top INDOOR league but it is not the top league in America (or was). Indoor soccer was and never will be probably a fully-professional sport. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:53, 9 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) 18:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Gridiron League

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

Completing nomination for 58.164.105.136, rationale is as follows: Contested PROD. Organisation is not notable, has only had one short season and now appears to be inactive. No independent mainstream coverage to prove notability. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not familiar with this league, so I went searching for info on it. I could find none. Since I can find no information, I have to assume that it fails WP:GNG and virtually any other measure of notability around. I would happily change my position if reasonable third party sources were found and the threshhold were met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few leagues for American sports in Australia ever receive significant coverage in reliable source, and this doesn't seem one of them: note that the organisation would have been essentially an amateur competition. I couldn't see any RS about this organisation through a Google search. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 12 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. Contact me with any concerns related to SPI. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Fitness

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

Fastest growing is meaningless in terms of importance when there is a very small base. Essentially all companies on the Inc list of fastest growing companies are probably what we would call not yet notable. The references are just PR. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is spam, but it is needed as evidence in the Morning277 SPI. I had intended to ask for G5 deletion after the investigation. I believe that if it is kept, it will be maintained by hired writers and remain purely promotional. —rybec 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "needed" to be kept for any purpose. Admins and checkusers can view deleted articles easily, so for the purpose of a SPI, it doesn't matter if this gets deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used too strong a word. I had read comments from Dennis Brown and Legoktm about how it's more difficult to investigate when articles have been deleted. Perhaps it's harder to view deleted articles in an editor's contributions? —rybec 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Why wouldn't WP:CSD#G11 apply here? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 12 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Recruiting Group

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

Non notable. It is on the INC list of fasted growing companies, not of most important companies. Fastest growing amounts to not yet notable, and the very high growth rates merely indicate a very small base, It cannot possibly have 500 employees with $10 million, unless it is counting short term placements. (some of the refs claim an even more fantastic 2,500 employees, which shows their reliability. ) this is just PR and not very effective PR at that. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:59, 12 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

99194853094755497 (number)

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

No evidence of notability עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be nothing more than chat-like comments to me. Dolescum (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [34], [35]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its only claim to notability is that it is the only cyclops prime which is also a Fibonacci prime but a) the article could not even manage to say this and b) cyclops primes are not considered notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:39, 7 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. Secret ^account 23:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dorf

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

promotional article about -- not an entrepreneur -- but a borderline-notable advisor to an entrepreneur. Most of the books upon which notability are based are essentially self-published; the only one with any substantial library holdings is 1 to 1 fieldbook, which he only coauthored. I consider it impossible to do a proper rewrite by normal editing. especially with such borderline notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is spam. It was put on Wikipedia by Morning277 editor Mikagrlo (talk · contribs), edited from Amazon AWS/EC2 address 54.251.21.249 which has been blocked due to abuse by Morning277, and I suspect that 58.97.173.237 (talk · contribs) and Arojit (talk · contribs) are also working with the Morning277 editors. If this is kept, it's likely to be maintained by the hired writers and remain purely promotional. I had intended to ask for G5 deletion once it was no longer ~~needed~~ useful as evidence in the Morning277 SPI. —rybec 17:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bob Dorf is an "advisor" to what may be notable subjects, but I see no convincing argument on the article for his own notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 12 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grangeside School

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

Appears to be a non-notable school. Whilst it is a secondary-level school, it is actually a Special Educational Needs school, which I don't think is granted any kind of automatic notability. What we're therefore left with is a school that appears to fail GNG, as all of its coverage comes from local sources. Searching for "Basingstoke School Plus" doesn't help either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, the only news sources are local (Redacted). Complete failure of notability. No reliable sources (Redacted)149.254.56.84 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)— 149.254.56.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Standard notable secondary school. Article rewritten with reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a standard school... did you read the nomination at all? All the coverage you added is local or routine (Ofsted), in some cases both. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is a secondary school (otherwise it wouldn't appear on the DFE tables), and therefore presumed to be notable per WP:NHS. As an aside, though, what other coverage of a school would you expect? Schools don't tend to make national news except in exceptional circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a SEN school, and the "presumed notable" bit only applies to regular schools. I don't expect any more coverage; that's the whole point, and that's why it fails the notability guidelines. Given that an admin tagged it as failing notability as well... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the admin tagged it when it was a one-line microstub. Anyway, it's a special school, not a SEN school, and we have dozens of articles for those - we even have a category (Category:Special schools in England) with 36 sub-categories. Are all these schools non-notable as well? Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it, yesterday, I wouldn't tag it today. GB fan 12:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's still a secondary school, whether it's special or not. Article had been rewritten by Black Kite to use reliable sources. Only a tiny amount if schools will receive anything more than local news. Ncoat13 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Ncoat13 - It's still a secondary school, whether it's special or not. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Secondary schools are presumed notable. Not "normal" secondary schools, not "standard" secondary schools, secondary schools. This is a secondary school. Regardless of anything else, that makes it presumed notable. I personally hate that presumption, but it's the presumption that has backing at this time... ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now an adequately sourced article on an encyclopaedic subject. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - secondary schools in general are presumed notable, and in any case has WP:RS now. Ansh6 6 6 18:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any school that is verified to serve secondary education is presumed to be notable. (WP:NHS) Frankly, we shouldn't really concern ourselves with what kind of students enroll here. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verified secondary school articles are typically covered in the encyclopedia. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 8 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. Procedural close, as the nomination was a violation of Tristan noir's topic ban (see the AN thread). No prejudice against speedy renomination by other editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Woodward

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

WP:N and WP:RS The subject of the article, a contemporary poet, falls short of notability and the article itself offers no reliable sources. Tristan noir (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(comment): The subject of the article, a contemporary poet, falls short of notability and the article itself offers no reliable sources. Tristan noir (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The person is notable, the "British Haiku Society" an important member of the Haiku scene[36] have Woodward as one of the two award adjudicators, for its 2010 haibun award.[37] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:39, 7 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 admin Acroterion (G5). (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 03:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinect Rush 2: A Cartoon Network Adventure

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

Can't find any reliable sources for this—everything turns up "Kinect Rush: A Pixar... whatever" except for a WP mirror and this "videogameideas" Wikia. Just nominated the purported developer, Bad Duck Entertainment, for CSD. Ignatz mice•talk 02:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was nominated for deletion last November, alongside the third in the purported series; the result was Snow Delete. Ignatz mice•talk 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 applied Looks like known sockmaster KuhnstylePro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who created this article the first time) has pulled another sock out of the drawer. Going through and reverting their contribs via WP:BANNED, and suggesting a block of Joe Mammy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The Wikia has been cited in the past as KSP's off-site playground to develop their hoaxes into something real here. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 7 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) 19:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrin Varghese

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

Not enough notable. Not enough references in the articles Praveen (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 7. Snotbot t • c » 01:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version of the article is really mediocre, but a Google News Archive search shows plenty of coverage in reliable sources in India over a ten year period, such as this article from The Hindu and many others. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per The Hindu, Times of India, The South Asian Times, and more. SL93 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 12 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. Any merger discussions can continue through normal processes. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saraikistan

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

Over the last year the article has became a battleground of those who want to keep it and those who blank and redirect the page to Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab. This edit war unfortunately has political overtones, as the word "Saraikistan" has been coined and promoted by a minority separatist movement in central Pakistan, with "stan" suggesting an independent administrative entity. "Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab" on the other hand has been proposed by different political actors to denote a geographical area. While the two terms differ in genesis, usage and emotional load, they refer to broadly similar (albeit apparently not the same) region. Currently, unlike Saraikistan, BJP article does not even mention the word "Saraikistan" nor an existence of any pro-independence/pro-autonomy sentiment in the region, so until this is fixed, blank-and-redirect does not seem justified to me. But I will appreciate to hear other editors' view. kashmiri ^TALK 00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC) kashmiri ^TALK 00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Saraikistan" is about the whole region of the particular ethnicty, whereas the "Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab" is merely a proposed province. We should not mess these things, an edit-war should not be concluding to nomination of deletion. Fai zan 01:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is a divided lack of consensus about this subject, it's not the time to just delete the article from one side of a debate. This needs to be discussed or some sort of dispute resolution sought, not a simple delete. I can guarantee that this will just cause some people to recreate the page and create animosity. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources in Pakistan have discussed this proposed autonomous region for quite a few years, and the nominator has not advanced any policy-based argument for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the comments above. For those who wonder why the article has been submitted to AfD - see WP:BLAR. kashmiri ^TALK 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab to Saraikistan, as both articles are on the same region. Saraikistan (a province for Siraiki speaking people) has been long a demand of certain quarters in Pakistan, and the region comprising of Saraiki speaking people in majority was named Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab in a proposal during Pakistan Peoples Party's government (2008-2013). So precisely Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab is a redundant fork of the other. Besides I suggest including Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab in this AfD, for better understanding of the issue. --SMS ^Talk 12:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saraikistan is not just a term coined up by Saraiki nationalists, it is actually often used to refer to the native region of the Saraiki people - like Pashtunistan, Balochistan, Punjab region etc. It is actually the name given to an ethno-linguistic region. The name Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab on the other hand is a recently-coined political term that has been used as a proposed name for the Saraiki province, and is an alternative of the historical name "Saraikistan". Given that the proposal for a "Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab" province has not yet materialised, I think Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab should be redirected to this article for the time being, or to Saraiki nationalism. Or an even better idea would be to keep that article too and rename it to Southern Punjab as that is the dominant geographical name used for that part of Punjab. Mar4d (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be some sort of edit war/lack of consensus going on so deleting the article before a consensus is reached seems to be premature.Red Fiona (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab to These Article That name Saraikistan has historical importance, on the other hand Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab was unpopular PPP proposal and also rejected by Saraiki people. Merging Bahawalpur Janubi Punjab to Saraikistan will be a fair solution. Samudrakula (talk) 12:51, 11 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. Secret ^account 23:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurs in astrology

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

A minor part of astrology, and not notable to the world at large. No mainstream sources "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" discusses this subset of astrology, or has drawn attention to it (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability/WP:GNG). There are at least 631 astrology articles, many are notable, but this one is not. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your rationale for deletion is not cogent. We require significant coverage in reliable sources for notability, not significant coverage in non-specialist sources. One could plausibly claim that since astrology is a fairly obvious pseudoscience, all astrology sources are unreliable. This is not how WP:RS works. Astrology-specialized sources can be reliable to accurately recount what astrologers believe to be true. We would hardly start deleting articles on obscure medical topics due to significant coverage only being found in the medical literature. Whether science, pseudoscience, or something else entirely, all articles stand or fall by the same notability standards. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading our guidelines I linked to, also note WP:GNG: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". Comparing astrology to obscure medical topics is invalid. Medical science is in the mainstream, astrology is within the fringes. Have a read of Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. A topic discussed by fringe practitioners is not necessarily notable to the mainstream just because the fringe proponents discuss it. The astrology sources are not reliable for 1. history. 2. science 3. statements about other astrologers or about astrology except as opinion (astrologers disagree with most aspects with each other, just ask a few astrologers if astrology is religion or science and let me know how you get along). On wikipedia we have issues with Undue promotion of fringe theories, and we do not mention aspects of fringe theories which have not received "attention by the world at large". There are many notable astrology articles, and they are notable because they have received said attention. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology is not altogether unpopular with the general public. It is "fringe" in the sense of failing to satisfy fundamental criteria for a science and the refusal of its practitioners to properly utilize scientific methods, not due to a lack of adherents. So there really is an issue as to how Wikipedia should best cover popular pseudosciences, as well as what distinguishes a religion from a pseudoscience. Personally, I would draw the line by whether the belief system respects the principle of non-overlapping magisteria: if it does, it's a religion; if it doesn't, it's a pseudoscience. But that might reflect an Abrahamic bias, of course. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point: nobody is saying that astrology in itself is fringe. However, what this article is about is a fringe part of astrology - from what I can tell, one that is debated and little-accepted or agreed upon within the astrological community. Ansh6 6 6 01:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories are not necessarily fringe with respect to the general population, what makes them fringe is with respect to academia. Of course virtually no one on the street knows much of anything about astrology beyond their star sign, but we digress. Astrology receives much coverage in reliable sources, centaurs in astrology just doesn't. But why aren't astrology sources viewed as reliable you might ask? Because they routinely overstate things to the benefit of their view and rely on fallacious logic. While there is little conformity in astrology; I've seen astrologers insist that astrology be described as X in the main article, then other astrologers arrive later saying that Wikipedia is doing a hatchet job by calling astrology X. Astrologers working on a specific topic within astrology will claim its the most important topic within astrology, etc etc. The astrological discourse is also inherently irrational and based on poor scientific reasoning, see Astrology_and_science#Irrationality for more. Astrologers also have a history of aggrandising their fringe views on wikipedia. This attempt by pseudoscience believers to use wikipedia as a platform to promote their views is directly why the fringe guidelines where formed in the first place. An academic account of astrology is reliable, an account of astrology written by an astrologer, no. What you appear to be implicitly assuming is that the astrological literature is like the scientific literature but simply looking at things from a different perspective. I challenge you to have a peek at some of their material. As an aside, I know several avowed Christians that disagree very angrily with the concept of NOMA and view theology as a science, so things aren't that clear there either, but that is a separate issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE#Notability. Most of the references in the article do not discuss the specific topic of "Centaurs in astrology", but rather discuss the objects called Centaurs in mainstream astronomy. There is no evidence that any reliable source has devoted significant coverage to this specific topic other than fringe pseudoscience advocates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails WP:FRINGE#Notability. Majority of them don't even have a real section, in any case, and the article mainly talks about the objects themselves and not astrology. The few sources that are given and that work aren't IMO reliable. Possibly redirect, but not sure where. Ansh6 6 6 18:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted a redirect Planets in astrology would be a likely target, the article can be deleted and redirected. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure a redirect would be useful here, after thinking about it. Centaurs are I guess technically planets, but Planets_in_astrology#Other_solar_system_bodies could be better - Chiron is mentioned there. Ansh6 6 6 23:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planets_in_astrology#Other_solar_system_bodies. The present article is very poor and the content is mainly astronomical rather than astrological. Rather than worry about Fringe Promotion, Wikipedia currently seems to have a issues of Fringe Demotion. Otherwise, editors who know and care about astrology would have been busy developing this article. In a recent AfD, the astrologer, Zane Stein linked to a list of 40 independent book titles: http://zanestein.com/bio.htm that referred to his work on Chiron. Even if some were self-published by independent authors, the astrological study of this minor planet evidently has some notability, but is not as yet notable enough for a dedicated article. Kooky2 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one thing about that is that Chiron is the only one of these Centaurs that so far has been analyzed in any depth by the astrological community. They haven't been discussed as a set or individually apart from the one. Ansh6 6 6 23:10, 13 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.