Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 December 22 December >

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 keep. I expect given the vehemence of some of the arguments here that this will be controversial. However, the majority of the delete opinions seem to be variants of "it's just not notable", despite substantial secondary sources provided by User:Binksternet. Given the weakness of the deletion arguments, there is no option but to keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Presley[edit]

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

Nomination Statement[edit]

Presented as both a scholar and an author, but fails to meet any of the criteria for notability at WP:Writer or WP:Academic. She is largely sourced by connected, ideological sources. Per WP:GNG, this does not cut it; we need lots of substantive mentions in independent RS indicating that she has influenced mainstream discourse in her fields (psychology and political theory). Steeletrap (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article appears to have been created by Ms. Presley herself (1), further undermining the idea that it arose organically, as a consequence of her academic or theoretical notability. Steeletrap (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Keep - She hasn't edited it since 2007 when evidently she was clued in about not editing it herself and other polices, per the archives. Lots of other editors have worked on it since. I'll add some newer refs: [ here ]. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Binksternet added some of the refs I had listed elsewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's relevant is not Ms. Presley's motives, but the fact that her entry is an autobiography. Steeletrap (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue as to COI is long dead. We ping such editors when we see COI. And the last edit she made actually downplayed her importance. She was templated as a connected contributor long ago and, as CMDC says, numerous subsequent edits have occurred. So, even with this old COI, a fundamental principal for us is to AGF and not present it/old COI as a basis for AfD. – S. Rich (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the creation of the article was caused by the COI, the COI is not dead so long as the article lives. Steeletrap (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are permitted to write WP:ABOUTSELF so long as guidelines are followed. If their edits are improper, then changes can be made editorially. The mere existence of COI does not serve to support AfD. Notability by itself is the standard. (For more, read WP:COS.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced to pretty good publishers including absolutely RS - University of California Press, etc. [1] mentioned as notable in a OUP book by Jennifer Burns. Sharon Presley, one of the few women to become active in the libertarian movement, remembered Atlas Shrugged as a revelation: “It wasn’t until Rand that I had some kind of explicitly articulated theory or set of principles that made sense to me… so that was a major, major influence on my life.”27 She have cited by others, multiple RS sources, etc. And I scarcely regard OUP as being an "incestuous and minor" publisher. Collect (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC) (note [2] removed the "delete" vote I quote from) Collect (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand WP:Academic. Cursory mention in a single RS does not come remotely close to establishing notability under the relevant criteria. You have to show that she is a major influence in her field (this seems unlikely given that almost no one has heard of her). Your argument is a total non-sequittur. Steeletrap (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- perhaps you need to read WP:AGF. In my opinion as an editor with well over thirty thousand edits and reasonable experience in AfD discussions, the person is sufficiently notable. Attacking folks who disagree with you is not going to change consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is an autobiography by an individual who is not notable and there is no evidence that she is even known except to her fellow travelers. Almost all the current content of the article should be deleted as unsourced by RS citations. Just to pound it in one more time, Srich: nobody said "COI" so your straw man denial is disruptive. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important libertarian feminist writer and co-founder of the Alliance of Libertarian Activists and Laissez Faire Books, Presley meets WP:GNG through coverage in the Milwaukee Sentinel and in A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s. News archives and book searches also bring up numerous mentions of her and inclusions of her writings. Gobōnobō + c 18:48, 21 December 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 December 21. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article would never have existed but for its subject creating it. She wasn't notable when she broke the rules to create it. She's not notable now. This is our chance to correct her error. MilesMoney (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP was created in 2006 when the "rules" did not so stipulate, The subject has not edited the BLP in over six years, and there have been a great many edits since her last edit. Cheers - whoever closes this should apply the proper weight to such an argument. Collect (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rules such as they are, still do not "forbid" autobios. Creating an autobio is "strongly discouraged", that's all. If somebody can create a well-sourced NPOV article about him- or herself showing clear notability through RS, there's nothing wrong with that. Even if an article is full of POV and an autobio/COI, that is absolutely irrelevant to any deletion discussion. POV/puffery is a reason for cleanup, NOT AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS citations are feeble in a highly cited area. COI is irrelevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see anything here that would meet WP:GNG. If all we can write about her is that she went to college, worked as an adjunct professor, helped open a bookstore and was a member of an organization... well, yeah, that's not the stuff of an encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The Klatch book already used as a reference discusses the life choices, experiences and views of Presley quite a bit, offering them as examples on pages 51–52, 69–70, 82, 84, 93, 118, 150, 152, 162, 269, 273, 286, 296 and 307. A book which is not yet used as a reference is Rita Mae Kelly's Gender and Socialization to Power and Politics. Kelly talks about Presley in the book's introduction, devoting two paragraphs to a study by Presley and her co-authors about Mormon feminism. Reason magazine interviewed her and put the video on their website as "Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism". AOL and Huffington Post also hosted this same video. Joan Kennedy Taylor says that Presley was very influential to Taylor's career, through her role in the Association of Libertarian Feminists (Reclaiming the Mainstream, page 7, ISBN 0879757175 ). Taylor also cites Presley's works "Government is Women's Enemy" and "Suzanne LaFollette". Author John F. Welsh writes about Presley's introduction to The Anarchists, spending a paragraph of his book After Multiculturalism on her ideas. Professor Jennifer Burns discusses Presley in Goddess of the Market, saying she was "one of the few women to become active in the libertarian movement" and thus was a standout example.[3] These sources show that Presley has influence, has been cited, has had her ideas analyzed and quoted. User:Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Collect and Binksternet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Also looks like she's an influence in feminist libertarian circles (more than just a member of an organization). While WP:OBSCURE, notability is sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for what it's worth, there's a quite extensive discussion of Presley in Ulrike Heider's book Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (OP) There is no evidence that she has made a significant impact on academic psychology or on political reflection, outside of a fringe group of fellow travelers. (virtually no one in the mainstream appears to have even heard of her, much less been influenced by her work.) The arguments above fundamentally misunderstand what academia is; academic notability isn't established by mention in a few RS (if it were, everyone with a master's degree would be notable). The interview in Reason is an absolute red herring insofar as academic credibility is concerned. Steeletrap (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The strong presence of Presley in the Klatch and the Heider books gets us into field position for WP:GNG. Presley being cited by Kelly, Taylor, Welsh and others puts the ball into the end zone. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bink, you need to balance your love of the chase with understanding of policy. You just don't get what notability is about; these cursory citations aren't close to being sufficient to demonstrate that she is influential in academic as a psychologist or political theorist. Steeletrap (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand that GNG has a lower bar. I'm aiming to satisfy GNG here, so you might want to read it and see what it's about. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while I am certainly sympathetic to the view that her academic actions are not notable, she does seem to satisfy WP:GNG as Binksternet has pointed out. She may not be particularly notable for being an academic, but as an individual she meets the standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tony. How does she meet GNG? She was interviewed by a newspaper in Milwaukee 33 years ago. She was mentioned in a single book which was published by a university where Presley was a lecturer. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of people with similar qualifications, but are they notable? SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet's original comment bring multiple sources that mention her as an influence on notable people, or being worthy of coverage in some other aspect. I feel that the sources provided by Binksternet meet the threshold for GNG. I don't think she is one of the most important people on the planet, but she meets our basic requirements for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone say that she had any influence, any lasting following, that her words or actions were significant. History has a long cast of characters but this one seems not to have had a speaking role. Like an extra in Gone With the Wind. I wish somebody could find an independent RS that tells of some significant action or idea of hers. The fact that she read Ayn Rand and really really liked it is an experience she shares with millions. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Marc Jason Gilbert, a PhD in Strategic Studies (war and politics), cites Presley in his book The Vietnam War on Campus: Other Voices, More Distant Drums, page 50. He cites the 1971 Presley work "Individualist Libertarians: A Psychological Study". Gilbert says: "Presley, a libertarian herself, found that libertarians were not only smarter than conservatives, but were also less religious, a fact she equated with freethinking and independent, heterogeneous attitudes.[4] Legal scholar Gary Chartier cites Presley's "Government is Women's Enemy" in his 2012 book published by Cambridge: Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society. Wendy McElroy says in the introduction to her book Liberty for Women: freedom and feminism in the twenty-first century, that Presley was a notable pioneer in the topic of freedom for women (page xiii). McElroy also cites Presley's "The Right to Abortion: A Libertarian Defense" on page 172. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Presley is cited in five paragraphs and quoted directly in one. The sources include six Presley works. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Ronald Hamowy-edited Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, published by SAGE in 2008, has an entry devoted to Sharon Presley, on page 414. It is always a very strong argument for notability on Wikipedia if a major publisher's encyclopedia contains an entry on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. What does the entry say about Dr. Presley? SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you fail to understand that mere citations don't demonstrate notability. Citations have to be substantive and demonstrate that the subject is influental. Also, the last two sources you cite are fringe (anarcho-libertarian) sources. Steeletrap (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionWait, you are saying that the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is a fringe source? The SEP is the gold standard in philosophical encyclopedias. Multiple citation in it means that she is considered by the top authors in the field to have contributed something worth commenting upon in a resource that is used by the vast majority of undergraduate and graduate philosophy departments in some way. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe sources show she is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Xxanthippe. A handful of citations doesn't make someone notable. Please read WP:ACADEMIC carefully before !voting here. If we would treat academic citations the same as coverage in a newspaper, then 2 would suffice for notability. In that case, all of my undergraduate students would be notable, too. I'm going to neutral per my reasoning below in the next section. (Yep, "section", that's how much this AfD got out of hand). --Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that Presley does not meet the ACADEMIC notability guideline. You might want to weigh in on whether you think she passes the WP:GNG guideline, as that is the working proposition at this point in the AFD. Make sure to weigh how much detailed coverage there is of Presley in the Milwaukee Journal piece, the Klatch book, and all the other sources citing or quoting Presley. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Bink, please see my questionnaire below. Stating that someone 'meets general notability guidelines' is a vague, unhelpful conclusory statement; we need to know what specifically about her work (writings, activsm, etc) leads you to that conclusion. She is only presented as an activist, academic and writer in the article, so it'd have to be one of those. Steeletrap (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually read the source material, in the process learning that nobody else appears to have done so. I can share my take on Dr. Presley: She was one of tens of thousands of young folks who marched, protested, joined up, and were otherwise engaged in the mid-late sixties counterculture. She was not a leader, she did not write any surviving manifesto or even pamphlet or letter to the editor, she did not meet with the authorities to represent the Movement, she did nothing other than join some organizations, loosely defined. Appealing a figure as she may be, I can't identify anything notable or even unusual about her. It would be helpful if editors who favor keeping this article could identify what action of hers makes her notable? Getting an interview in Milwaukee years later is not notable. The only reason she appears to have been mentioned in later writings is that, unlike the hippies, yippies, and drippies of the time who vanished into American middle-class life, she was available to reminisce with one reporter for a Milwaukee newspaper and with a writer who was working on a book for Presley's employer. Being the owner's assistant at a two-person bookstore is not notable, even if the store itself may be notable. This is dicey. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your next book, then, is the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism which carries an entry on Presley. If you read that entry you'll understand why other people judge her notable. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GBooks and GScholar results, together with the sources cited in the article, appear sufficient to satisfy the GNG. The "What is she notable for?" argument is a repeatedly-rejected canard; meeting the GNG is sufficient to establish notability, even if there is no convenient SNG-pigeonhole the subject can be shoved into. It's disruptive to campaign to delete biographies of those whose ideas you reject, and contrary to the project's five pillars; whether the campaign is run from the right (cf the now-indeffed User:IronKnuckle or from the left, as here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is poor and mostly single-sourced as it stands, so I can understand why people might !vote delete based on that. However, as Binksternet has demonstrated, there are more sources out there and at least some of them are indeed independent and providing more than passing mentions etc. She's a minor player but seems to be a notable minor player. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article has no real assertion of notability. As far as I can tell, WorldCat holdings are very small. The source list is problematic too. Many fall far short of WP:RS, for example her CV, various websites, etc. The length of the source list is very misleading because there's lots of repetition. The Milwaukee Journal source seems solid, but I don't think that the list collectively satisfies the bar of having multiple, non-trivial sources. Agricola44 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Can you point to the repetition, 'cause I don't see it. More importantly, what do you think of the biographical entry on Presley in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism? Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 16 sources listed: 5 of them are the Klatch publication and 2 are LFB history, so more than a third are repeats. But the problems are greater, as I said, e.g. several are from her own commercial .net and .com websites, one is just an ISBN number to a book which doesn't even seem to exist, etc. These aren't WP:RS. I'm sorry, but I don't have immediate access to Encyclopedia to which you refer, so I'm afraid I can't readily comment on that. Because there is a very high correlation between notability and significant book holdings and/or citations, the other real red flag here is that her books seem to be held by very few institutions. The gist of the article is that she is notable because of scholarship, but that assertion is not consistent with low holdings and/or citations. Agricola44 (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
What about the SEP citations? While I agree with your general premise about holding being low, generally speaking, I consider people that the SEP takes seriously enough to directly name and quote to be notable. In combination with having an entry in an encyclopedia published by a major publisher, I consider her to meet WP:GNG. Those two sources alone seem to meet the bare minimum criteria, and all the others, while they may have issues, are things to be sorted out after notability has been determined by consensus via AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would concede your point if there were a bio about Presley in SEP, but it appears that there are only a few cites and short quotes from her. If we agree that these tertiary cites might carry roughly the weight of a more traditional primary or secondary cite (e.g. from a research article or a book), then I would say that such is very typical for a scholar. In other words, our rough rule of several hundred such citations is the required threshold for notability. Agricola44 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

List of sources[edit]

Anyone with access to Google could compile such a list; what we need to do as editors is interpret the meaning of these sources as regards her notability. She is described in the article as a writer and a scholar; do any of these sources indicate that Presley's books, theories, or academic work have been highly influential? Notability is not established by simple mentions in RS. If that were true, everyone (e.g. the survivor of a natural disaster) who has ever been interviewed by a couple newspapers would be notable. All but one of the mainstream sources discussed her in a fleeting manner. The one that went into some detail was published by the University Press of the school she (briefly) lectured at; but that discussion does not establish that she is influential in any respect.. Steeletrap (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is she notable for?[edit]

Most of the "keep" statements have been completely unspecific. To clarify their reasoning, and facilitate a meaningful discourse, I hope those who support keep will answer the following questions.

1) What is she notable for? Please be specific.

If answer to 1) is 'academic work, political theory or writing': Which book/journal article/manifesto makes her notable in this regard, and which RS do you use to support the notability of said book/article/manifesto? Please be specific.

If answer to 1) is activism: What evidence is there that the influence of her activism extended outside of her very small group of fellow travelers? (i.e. influenced the mainstream)) Please be specific. Steeletrap (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presley is known for her expertise on Ayn Rand, on Voltairine de Cleyre, on Suzanne La Follette, on anarchist feminism, on Mormon feminism, on libertarian feminism, on radical feminism, women and liberty, women and choice, etc. She is known for her organizing efforts as the National Coordinator for the Association of Libertarian Feminists (ALF). She is known for her influence at Laissez-Faire Books, choosing books, discussing books, holding what amounted to a literary salon, and editing the bookstore's own book review periodical, the Laissez Faire Review. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to want to take ownership of your assertions. For example, we know that there is a web page on which somebody or other called her their "national coordinator" -- That's sort of like saying that Mr.Magic Herbal Supplement is known for having the potential to increase sexual potency, results not guaranteed. You'd need to find an independent secondary discussion of the noteworthiness of Presley's activities in that role. Everyone knows your lists by now, so unless you can make a policy-based case for the content that they actually would support, your statements irrelevant to the AfD issues. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bink, I just don't see how any of this adds up to notability. MilesMoney (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, gents, I don't think any of my arguments will satisfy you when what you really want is to delete the article. My arguments are for other page watchers to see. I think the encyclopedia builders among us will get the sense that this woman has been said to be important by various authorities and observers, especially with the entry about her in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, her being cited by many authors including Baehr writing for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, her big writeup in the Milwaukee paper, the extensive quoting of her in the Klatch book, and so on. I'm happy knowing that a good number of people here would rather build the encyclopedia than cut down their ideological opponents. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not helping that editors who want the article deleted keep removing material about notability on flimsey excuses, rather than working collaboratively to deal with minor issues, per my long list of problems on the talk page. Those issues will be fixed but I won't edit war to fix them immediately. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bink: -- Why don't you step up to the plate and improve the article? You've got your sources lined up, so you well prepared to add some good RS content to the article. Then we can have a more concrete discussion of content and notability. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't enjoy editing topics that are contentious or disputed. I was under the impression that AFDs could be concluded as 'keep' even if the article was not improved, as long as notability was established at the AFD discussion, and article improvement was shown to be possible. If that is not the case then I will expand the article using the references discussed here. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some content from various sources, but I got to a dead end, because after I added it, the article still didn't show her meeting GNG. Maybe somebody will find some nuggets hidden in your list. The list by itself cannot support a GNG finding because we don't know what content it will support. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The argument by those in favour of deleting seems to be that she does not meet WP:GNG. My question is this: can you please explain to us how she does not meet the criteria of GNG? By my reading of GNG, in combination with the sources provided by Binksternet, she clearly passes the test. There is significant coverage by the definition of GNG. The SEP alone meets the reliable sources standard, and it seems to me that most if not all of the other sources do as well. There are multiple sources independent of the subject. It seems to me that by GNG, she has the presumption of notability unless it can be shown by those who are advocating deletion that she is not notable, and does not meet the standards for inclusion, especially after such a thorough list of sources has been compiled. I will be more than happy to change my !vote to delete if this is the case, because I really don't have that strong feelings either way about articles regarding American political ideology. My main concern is that we do not delete it unduly. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A few more things have been added, including new refs, though the above list has hardly even been plumbed yet for reasons that Binksternet mentions. It would help if people who want article deleted would stop coming up with dubious excuses to delete material that is being added or ref'd, as I have been noting on the talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. To me this seems like a case of WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. GNG appears to be satisfied. Place cleanup tags on the article in the areas that are needed to help it become better, and interested editors will develop consensus as to what the best way forward with the article is. If the deletion advocates in this case can correct me, I'm more than happy to change my !vote, but at this point, it looks like she meets the criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is she notable for? Does ALF exist, or is it just a nostalgia website she maintains? Who says she's notable? Her? She tells some stuff to an interviewer on a web video. Is that notable? She was a clerk at a bookstore 30+ years ago? Notable? A list of googled mentions doesn't confer notability. The content properly sourced would indicate notability. I wish somebody would figure out why she's notable and demonstrate it, citing an independent RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that have been provided, and as I showed, meet GNG, grant to her the presumption of notability for being a notable figure within the libertarian community, even if a small one. You also haven't answered my question. How do the sources provided NOT meet WP:GNG? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, GNG is not about the source, it is about the content. The sources have to say something that demonstrates notability. What do these sources say that demonstrates notability? SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true. The mere fact that a major publisher's encyclopedia has a biographical entry on a person goes a long way toward satisfying GNG, even if the encyclopedia entry says the person is a fraud. In that case, we would 'keep' the article and work to make its content conform better to the sources. Same with the big writeup in the Milwaukee paper: in a sense it does not matter what it said about Presley; its mere existence shows Presley is noteworthy in Milwaukee, and this adds to notability. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO is absolutely right. The spouse and children of, for instance, an eminent academic or journalist are likely mentioned in several RS written by the academic or journalist. This does not make them notable. Analysis of the specific content in sources is needed to establish notability. This is why Bink's strategy of Googling without reading is misguided. Steeletrap (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Binks, the clip from the newspaper from Milwaukee is not a "big writeup", it's an interview placed by the host of local event attended by Presley. The sponsor of the event was Carroll College, a local Milwaukee school. The story is in the local news section of the paper and appears next to the tale of a woman who runs a local antiques shop. She buys chairs while her husband prefers stools. What twist of logic would lead you to conclude that Sharon Presley "is" current tense "noteworthy in Milwaukee"? Bink, do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of similar articles are archived from local newspapers around the world? Think about your own sphere of knowledge. How many utterly non-notable stage acts get a sit-down with the local reporter before a local cabaret gig, weekend theater production, or similar event? Should they all have WP articles? "Big Writeup??" -- You don't strike me as one who would be so easily impressed. If she were notable, there would be dozens of similar clippings. But there's only one. One clipping. Milwaukee. Sitting there next to grannie's stool. Think about it. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please call me Bink, Binkster, or Binksternet. I noticed that you chose to attack the big writeup in the Milwaukee paper by belittling its placement and undermining its author. The placement does not affect notability. The author is allowed to be biased. The Milwaukee paper gives a certain amount of leverage here at AFD, being a major US city paper, but as you note it is not multiple papers, and it is not one of the larger US papers such as the Chicago Tribune. Nevertheless, the writeup lends its weight to the total notability of Presley. You cannot cut it down with simple insults and expect to eliminate its influence.
I also noticed that you chose not to attack Presley's biography in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, nor her being cited multiple times in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The tactic of picking apart a lesser point when you cannot attack the strong points is not going to sway a careful closing administrator who will be able to assign a very high weight to the encyclopedia presence of Presley. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bink, Binster, or Binksternet - I think you're goofin' on us now. What are you calling an "attack"? Discussion of the source? How about "evaluation"? Thanks. The placement of an article within a daily newspaper indicates the editors' assessment of its importance and the segment of readership to whom it is noteworthy. Granny's stools are important, but not noteworthy in the WP sense. The editors' decision as to where the article appears is one of the things we assess on WP in evaluating sources and the claims attributed to them. For example, in the weekend living section of your local print paper, you'll find all kinds of informative articles about subjects which nobody will care about 33 years from now. Anyway, it's not a "big writeup" -- sorry. It's just not. You mustn't assume the conclusion you are trying to prove. That's fun for one, but it won't stand the test of public scrutiny. What on earth are you calling an insult? If you'd be specific, we could get to the bottom of things and figure out whether there's any merit to your views.
I don't have any problem with the Stanford reference, so if you want somebody to attack it, you'll have to find somebody else to do your dirty work or "attack" it yourself. I will not attack Stanford, the school, the book, or the movie. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all get by now that the Steeletrap/SPECIFICO/MilesMoney combo do not think this individual is notable. But overwhelming a talk page with your arguments that would seem to drown out other opinions seems a bit questionable, policy wise, doesn't it? Must others be forced into this back and forth? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay on topic. If you cannot, I will seek enforcement of Community Sanctions. You may respond to Bink's statement or my reply but you may not denigrate other editors. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed names of editors if that bothers you. Anyway, Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#General_advice reads in part: Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves. Constantly writing: why is she notable, prove it, you are wrong because..., etc. and even creating a section to hammer home the point seems really problematic under that guidance . Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the case for non-notability here is even stronger than that of many successful AfD nominations I've instigated or supported. While I will respect the community's decision (which will very probably -- inexplicably -- be "keep'), I expect Presley's proponents to work to improve the article. I expect that another AfD is a possibility (though not from me) if, several months in the future, the best sources you can provide are half-paragraph mentions in esoteric, nostalgic histories of libertarian activism and the one story in the local Milwaukee paper. The Klatch source is a total anomaly; everything else in the article is a cursory mention with no bearing whatsoever on notability. Steeletrap (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And under what account name did you participate in those "many successful AFD nominations"? It certainly wasn't your current account, "Steeletrap". This account has contributed to only 10 other AFDs, only 4 of which closed as "delete". Among those, it nominated 5 other articles for deletion, only 1 of which was deleted. That's a pretty awful track record. So which is it, Steeletrap? Did you just lie in order to influence the outcome of this discussion? Or are you acknowledging use of multiple accounts? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please cross your multiple, ridiculous personal attacks or I'll report you. My AfDs on William L. Anderson and Mozart is a Red resulted in the elimination of those WP pages (a "merge" is really a delete-plus; it deletes the WP page in question while preserving some content on another page). You embarass yourself by attempting to evaluate statistics in a vacuum, without looking at the broader context; AfDs usually fail, so 2/5 (40%) is a pretty strong track record. Moreover, neither Miles nor SPECIFICO (my alleged "socks") have (to the best of my memory) ever nominated any article for deletion. I am a bit flattered if you think I'm Mister Sitush, whose AfDs I've also participated in. Steeletrap (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if I had only had one deletion, the term "many" (as in "successful AfDs) explicitly referred both to ones I've "instigated" and "supported". I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension, nor the laughable inferences you draw based on it. I mean really, do I have to teach you that "many" is an indefinite number, and can include 2, 3 etc? Steeletrap (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Report away. I'm sure that claim that "many" means 2 will get the reception it deserves. And, despite your attempts at deceptive insinuation, my comment accurately reported the outcomes for all AFDs in which you participated.And, by the way, as to 40% at deletion being a stroing track record, mine is roughly 85%. "Success" rates at xFD nominations below 50% are not good. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"many" can mean 2, but it referred to half a dozen or so in this context, as "many" referred to both AfDs I instigated and participated in. It is absurd how often I have to explain this to you. Steeletrap (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the most ridiculous things (among many) that I have ever heard. And 40% is abysmal. I'm not as good as Hullaballoo, but I get just over 80% myself in over 300 AfDs over the past year (and 73% in >90 articles I took to AfD). I'm withdrawing my "delete" !vote in a minute, as I have no clue any more by now what is hidden in this flood of squabbling. This AfD should best be closed "no consensus" and then re-done in a few months when tempers have calmed down and this thing can be discussed rationally. --Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
40% is perhaps an abysmal percentage, but it's kinda dubious to draw any inferences from that given that 1) I'm 2 of my last three (0 for 2 as a noob) 2) these pages attract ideological libertarians who are inclined to want to 'keep' the entries of obscure figures they may like 3) It's such a small sample size (5 total AfDs). You can't blame me for being defensive when Hull is making PAs and harassing accusations.
Additionally, User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's count is wrong. He did not count my successful AfD for Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, which gives me a 3/4 or 75% success rate since I was a total noob. The term "many" can refer to three (even though it doesn't in this context -- as I included a half dozen or so AfDs I'd participated in.) HI thus ask HW to cross his erroneous accusations, based as they were on not only a misunderstanding of the definition of terms ("many" and "or") but on a failure of arithmetic. Steeletrap (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC, because it has past seven days, and as we can see, it has gotten pretty contentious. Just thought it best to let people know. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 29 December 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) 01:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Flame Research Foundation[edit]

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

It has been filled up with marketing material, including much just copied from the websites of the organization, largely by an unregistered user with the same name as one of the officials. This is of course copyright violation as well. It does not seen practicable to create a proper encyclopaedic entry in the face of this. The lack of other articles referring to it and the lack of respect shown to Wikipedia suggest that it is not worthwhile having this page, which I created as a stub. I am greatly disappointed. Chemical Engineer (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uninspired corporate PR puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 22 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Karp[edit]

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

Insufficiently sourced article about a living computer-scientist. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just need someone to find CV, Google Scholar itself says that his h-index is high enough to be included. Ask @Randykitty: if you don't believe me.--Mishae (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you kindly refer to WP:SCHOLAR, our notability guidelines for researchers. H-Index may be used as a rough indication of notability but is not of itself enough to show notability. As per General Notability Guidelines we look for significant coverage in secondary and tertiary sources to show notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. H-index as of 2008 21, current 23 It fits #1 perfectly just by looking at his latest work which was cited over 6,000 times. Not many academics have such high praised works. I seen from 300 to 500 citations per work, but not over a thousand for a single one. The required h-index to sustain notability is 19, mine is slightly above it.--Mishae (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've chosen to disregard the guidance about H-Indexes, specifically that they "may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution since their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used". Usually criteria #1 would be demonstrated by showing reliable sources that attest to the importance of this subject.
Could you kindly show the relevant rule or policy which backs up your statement: "The required h-index to sustain notability is 19" --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the policy, but what Randykitty says I follow, he is an expert in this field. For further info leave him a message. There was numerous deletion discussions in which both him and me participated, now that you should find on your own. As an example, I can give you this to read.--Mishae (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't usually think that one article could make someone notable, but Karp has one that was cited over 6000 times since 2000. Can't remember ever seeing something like that. But let's just shove it aside for a moment. Even without that one phenomenal article, he has 1200 citations and a GS h-index of 22. That alone would make him meet WP:ACADEMIC#1, but in combination, there's no doubt at all. --Randykitty (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would you care to respond to Mishae's suggestion above? I would be grateful if you could cite relevant policy that shows h-index values can be used to show notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One has to wonder if those Google Scholar numbers for Brad Karp are correct. It's extremely rare for a computer science paper to have that many citations and ... drum-roll ... it's topic not to have a Wikipedia article. Taking another (Richard) Karp's work as example, Karp's 21 NP-complete problems - the original paper has about 8K citation according to GS [5], but that founded a sub-field... On the other hand Greedy perimeter stateless routing?? Hell, it beats Cook's Theorem according to GS which has a bit lees than 6K gcites [6], Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've asked someone "in the know" and got told that it is possible... because there was a huge academic publication bubble in wireless mesh networks / wireless ad hoc networks / mobile ad hoc networks / vehicular ad hoc networks / wireless sensor networks, most of which (I was also told) has yet to have any real-world impact. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is what WP:SCHOLAR warns us about: What may be considered a remarkable h-index value varies across fields of study and time, hence no single score gives inherent notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that seems right. The paper for AODV (a more notable protocol than B. Karp's — I would think — because even I had heard of it) has ... 16715 gcites. Now Samir Das is going to have heart attack when he hears that he is much more famous than R. Karp, but he still doesn't have a Wikpedia page! Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And to round it up, OSPF, which is widely used, unlike the above, only scored 3K gcites. Ok, ~5K if we magnanimously add the cites for the multicast extension paper and the 500 gcites the book has.) I guess John T. Moy is going to have to suck it up! Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • LOL, User:Mishae obliged us with a quickbio for Das in which we are told that "he did many researches in computer engineering and computer science fields". I also had a similar moment of hilarity reading Anastasia Ailamaki. He is doing these people a disservice, probably without realizing. If I were to read those not knowing who wrote them, I'd assume some recently arrived F1 student (of these profs) put those up... Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • "He is doing these people a disservice" - Wow, so that's how Wikipedians talk of their fellow users. Stop criticizing me, and lets wait till Randy peeps in.--Mishae (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Plus, can someone explain to me what is so funny in my articles. English is my second language, that's why I mostly do stubs. Is there is a problem in being a foreigner?--Mishae (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • For people that think that my articles are funny and that GS is a unreliable and funny source check out Shlomo Havlin, he too is mentioned on GS with an h-index of 97! Does that mean that GS is unreliable? Look at his works!--Mishae (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citations pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I'm putting it here, because the above discussion is becoming a bit too disorganized. As WP:PROF says, one needs to be cautious when interpreting citation data (including the h-index). Low figures do not necessarily mean that someone is not notable (it just means the absence of proof of notability through citation data, not proof of non-notability, which is something that cannot be proven). Also, citation rates differ over different academic fields, being much lower in the humanities and mathematics, for example, than in physics or the life sciences. In mathematics, 500 citations and an h-index of 10 would generally be considered enough evidence of notability. In this field, citation rates are higher, but Karp is significantly above what is usual in this field. I don't see why his article with over 6000 citations should be ignored because it has no WP article of has no real world applications yet. The fact that other articles that did have real-world applications have fewer citations is even less relevant. Whatever may be the case, as I pointed out above, even if we completely ignore that incredibly highly-cited article, Karp obviously passes the bar of notability. As for the articles that Mishae creates, I think it reflects badly on WP editors to make fun of another editor's efforts. Mishae is not a new editor here (with over 50,000 edits), but clearly has some things to learn about writing bios of academics. However, belittling his efforts does not behoove WP editors and reflects badly on themselves. Instead of wasting everybody's time by taking a bio o an obviously notable person to AfD without apparently even checking GS, that effort should better be used to improve said articles and help Mishae improve his editing skills in this area. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm concerned that we are giving undue weight to this scholar's h-index value. Unless we can find a reliable source that attests to the importance and notability of this individual score, we will be guilty of bringing our own point of view to the article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is NOT the h-index alone. Apart from his one exceptional article, there are 1200 frigging articles citing his work. That is what an h-index of 22 means. --Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You miss my point: Who says that's something we should take note of? For all we know it could be a quirk or bug in the system used to calculate these things. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bug. Really. You're grasping at straws now, please be serious. --Randykitty (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if we discount his top-cited paper as being work with his doctoral advisor and hard to disentangle who should get more credit for it, the rest of the publications have easily enough citations for WP:PROF#C1 even in a highly cited field. And the Wolfson Award may be enough for #C2 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 22 December 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) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ikechukwu Asika[edit]

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

This person seems to be a remarkably prolific scholar, however I was unable to locate any reliable sources which could independently attest to his notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 December 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) 01:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insta-panel[edit]

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

Article lacks independent and reliable sources which substantially cover this subject and can be used to verify this subject's notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 22 December 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. NW (Talk) 21:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street Season 2[edit]

Sesame Street Season 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is practically empty. There are just numbers of episodes, but no reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • And? It's Sesame Street and one of the very first seasons. Give it a stub tag. Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the content is in List of Sesame Street Episodes (which should have the capitalization fixed) already. When somebody gets around to filling in the details, it can always be split off. What is there is fake or useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 21 December 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. Mkdwtalk 20:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of most likes on you tube[edit]

List of most likes on you tube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

100% original research article which will be obsolete and inaccurate the moment it is published. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I doubt original research (as the data is kinda published by Google), but it is more or less a copy/paste of data from Google. No need for it to be here. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Krapenhoeffer. This is just a copypaste of a Google page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This data was not copied from google. I could not find it anywhere except on each you tube video. If someone can find it, fine. eameece, author of page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eameece (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If no such list exists elsewhere, it's not a notable topic and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if an article exists on wikipedia about the most views for you tube videos, since you tube doesn't show it anymore, then a list of most likes is equally notable. It is a better indicator of popularity. Eameece (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)eameece[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Joker Blogs[edit]

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

Just doesn't appear notable, article lacks coverage, a search brings up little to no usable sources (and no Google News hits). If anything it's borderline and bringing here for consideration. Яehevkor ✉ 20:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdwtalk 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon Henry[edit]

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

Promotional article for author of borderline notability. The two books are in less than 200 libraries each. Writing articles for magazines is not usually considered enough for notability unless they win major awards. The promotionalism consists of: putting the list of publications written for , in the lede, (and then repeated in the article); a paragraph of name-dropping of the notable architects discussed in her book, which amounts to link-spam; a highlighted quote on her book, from an unnamed source that appears to be a book jacket; another highlighted quote, from an airline's in-flight magazine; half the articles listed in detail are written for another in-flight magazine; her non-notable poetry is listed in detail, as are her insignificant memberships in trade organizations. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The book reviews are conveniently available at the W. W. Norton website: [7] Of these I was able to find three online: Residential Architect, Architects + Artisans and Miami Herald but I think we can assume the others exist, Norton is a reliable publisher. Are these enough? Well the Miami Herald is brief and it contains a promotional aspect, and Architects + Artisans is a single-person blog site. I'll discount Delta Sky as a "sky mall" type of marketing piece, "The Decorating Diva" sounds like a blog. I'm unable to find what Luxe Interiors is, and Modernism could refer to Modernism Magazine but the magazine is now defunct[8] so can't verify. So that leaves a single reliable and verifiable source: Residential Architect. Now moving on to the sources listed in the article. The majority of them are sources by Saxon not about Saxon so those can't be used to determine notability since we only look at sources about a person, not by a person. The only one that looks promising is 944 Magazine but unfortunately the site is down and there is no Wayback Machine cache. So after sifting all this through the notability screen there is a single source that shows notability, Residential Architect, and that is not enough. -- GreenC 21:14, 24 December 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 Copyvio deleted, article redirected to Tarkhan (Punjab). Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Tarkhan People[edit]

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

The article Tarkhan (Punjab) already exists. This is a duplicate article with no references. SH 17:19, 21 December 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 (speedy G4). Has been speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Research Paper Sections[edit]

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

Fork of Research paper with sections that read like a 'how-to' guide. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 21 December 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, Ivanvector offers the most policy-convincing argument and there is sufficient consensus to delete the article behind this rationale. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of low-radiation smartphones[edit]

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

Unsure why this is a list of any relevance. Lacks sources currently, although that could change, it's merely questionable as to why we need this list. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. It's a referenced, verifiable list. Please quote something relevant from WP:SYNTHESIS to back up your claim.--Elvey (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem is for a list to be useful it has to be reasonably complete and authoritative. Occasionally, people have tried to add an external link to a list at some site to the article Mobile phone radiation and health. But these are often of the dubious quality like "GSM Arena" used as the only reference for the list here. A WHOIS for GSM Arena gives a location in Sofia, Bulgaria, not likely the centre of mobile telephony of the world. The challenge is for accuracy and completeness, and that I think should mean reference to regulatory authorities. But these are country based. And manufacturers' sites many be by country by model; models may differ by country or even within a country by carrier. I think there is no way to ensure a reasonably complete and accurate list for a particular Wikipedia user somewhere in the world. --papageno (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, be civil. Your comment is very bigoted. Please retract it. Don't cast vague negative aspersions toward Sofia, or by association GSM Arena. If you have anything other than bigoted commentary to evidence GSM Arena being of other than first caliber, put up. 2)Will you please at least admit that it's true that all these mobile devices' SAR values can be verified in the FCC's online database? 3)And that that makes the values WP:VERIFIABLE?--Elvey (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Elvey. My point was simply that Sofia isn't the location for any major regulatory authority for cell phones, whether for Europe, the Americas or for the world as a whole. GSM Arena is clearly a commercial site, and there is no evidence to suggest it is a reliable source or that it takes its evidence from a WP:RS site. I see there are now additional references to sites called SARValues and SARBatabase which are in the same way suspect. One could go to the FCC (which is a reliable source), but that would only cover models for the United States. And models even with the US vary by carrier. The ratings wouldn't apply even for neighbouring countries such as Canada and Mexico, and not for Japan, Australia, South Africa, India, etc. Thus, for a list to be useful, it would have to be many thousands of entries long. In addition, models change with regularly as such a pace, that to keep any list up to date would be an almost impossible task. I think User David Hedlund wishes to create a list out of good faith, but the concept of such a list is flawed from the outset. --papageno (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OP provided no specific justification for deletion in the first place.--Elvey (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not define the units (SAR), without this the list is meaningless. Phone radiation will depend on numerous factors, e.g. how strong the signal is, whether bluetooth is on (and what version it is), what country you live in, and possibly what network you use. Also, What is low? A low radiation phone of ten years ago would probably be a high radiation phone today. Ditto 20 and 10 years etc.Martin451 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS. The FCC explains that SAR tests are used to certify a device for sale, and are meaningless for comparing one device to another. This article seems to have made up its own definition of "low-radiation", being any device that tests lower than an arbitrary SAR level, which is not a conclusion supported by the citations. If "low-radiation" is meant to mean any device approved by FCC & other regulators, then delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ivanvector (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since being nominated, the page has been moved to List of smartphones with FCC approval and low-radiation, which is still synthesis. Ivanvector (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'meaningless'? That's overstating it. They do offer major caveats.--Elvey (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's been moved back and redirected? I'm not sure now. Ivanvector (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The FCC sources [9][10] say: "Any cell phone at or below these SAR levels (that is, any phone legally sold in the U.S.) is a "safe" phone, as measured by these standards." And then they give SAR values for all existing smartphones. They don't qualify any phone as "high radiation" or "low radiation". So, this list is based on a criteria that is not present on its sources.
If we followed sources, we would have to list the SAR value of all smartphones approved by FCC. This would be a very broad and unfocused topic, and it would run afoul of Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. If we tried another criteria, like number of phones manufactured, etc, we would run again into sourcing and synthesis problems. There should be several reliable sources of high quality explicitly labelling some phones as "low" and explaining why this is important. And I don't mention newspaper articles, and stuff like that. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"And then they give SAR values for all existing smartphones." That's not true! They link to a database where, if you have the smartphone's FCC ID, then you can, eventually, find reported SAR values, one by one.
Is it your contention that any list on the topic of any subset of device SARs is unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic? I don't see anything at WP:NOT to support such a view.
There are several reliable sources of lists of low-radiation phones - several major news sources have covered this topic.--Elvey (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those reliable sources would help a lot to preserve this article. But, where are those reliable sources? Why aren't they already used in the article, or listed in the talk page for other people to use, or listed here to convince the closing admin that there were sources after all?
If we can't look at the newspaper articles, we can't tell if they are serious articles on scientific analysis, or an article on all cellphones and not just smartphones, or just sensationalist interpretation of a scientific paper that said something very different.
To avoid deletion, your best bet is dumping here a list of the best sources. I'll list one myself because it's only 5 minutes on google. I suggest you search in news.google.com and other places.
I would accept only newspaper articles if they were a few of them with enough quality. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems so blatantly obviously verifiable to me that "There are several reliable sources of lists of low-radiation phones", I thought that the statement didn't require sources. Challenging obvious facts because you dislike them is disruptive, as noted at WP:BLUE. But since you seem to have done so, here are more sources - a couple I had already noted a while back. Computerworld is certainly a particularly high quality source and publication in general.:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217287/What_s_your_cell_phone_s_maximum_radiation_level_Interactive_database?pageNumber=2I
http://sarvalues.com/the-complete-sar-list-for-all-phones-usa/
--Elvey (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The page has changed greatly since voting started. -Elvey (talk)

Keep is implied by David Hedlund's editing. (But David hasn't actually !voted here.)

  • Kudos to the editors for working on improving the article, but the core issue has not been addressed. The list is based on an entirely unsourced and at this point unscientific assertion that a "head SAR less than 0.4" qualifies a phone as "low-radiation", and this has been changed in recent edits from 4 (a ten-fold change) and has never been backed up by a citation. The sources do not say that and in fact do not offer any definition of "low-radiation" other than that phones are approved for sale by various rating agencies. This article's "low-radiation" definition is entirely made up, and the list is entirely based on that made-up definition. Furthermore, the implied assertion that phones that make this list are safer than other phones is not only not backed up by science, it is explicitly refuted by the FCC, therefore it is potentially legally negligent for Wikipedia to invent this definition. Delete. Ivanvector (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete the mess of redirects being generated by moving this page so many times. Ivanvector (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Ivanvector (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
You voted twice. You are misinformed; Naval cited an article with the title "20 lowest-radiation cell phones (U.S.)". Also you're making stuff up - or if you have a citation that shows the FCC "explicitly refuting" "that phones that make this list are safer than other phones", provide it. In other words, I believe the FCC has never referred to this wikipedia article… Perhaps what you wrote is not what you meant to say… So, this new issue you raise and call the core issue - is it addressed if the article is based on CNet's list of the 20 lowest-radiation cell phones currently on sale in the U.S.?
Please don't edit comments made by other editors in an AfD. I undid your edit to my comment above. AfD is not an election, a user may make as many comments in favour or opposed to deletion as is warranted by the discussion. Since you appear to feel strongly about it, in good faith I have added a duplicate vote template to my duplicate !vote, and I have added one to yours as well. Now if you'll agree with me that further discussion on !vote counts doesn't enhance the discussion, let's stick to arguments about the Wikipedia-worthiness of the article's subject. Ivanvector (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the comments made by User Ivanvector --papageno (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you: Is it your contention that any list on the topic of any subset of device SARs is unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic? I don't see anything at WP:NOT to support such a view. --Elvey (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My contention is that the basis of the list is unencyclopedic, mirroring Enric Naval's concerns above. There is no verifiable criteria for inclusion in the list; the one given (SAR value less than 0.4) doesn't mean anything without being backed up by citations. As an example of what I mean, an "Ultra-low emission vehicle" is one that meets a specific measurement - it's not a flat numeric measurement but it is specific, i.e. some cars qualify and some don't, based on a verifiable standard (and not one invented here). We could make a "list of ultra-low emissions vehicles" based on that standard. However, we couldn't make a "list of high fuel efficiency vehicles" which are cars that have an EPA rated fuel economy greater than 50 miles per gallon, because that would be an arbitrary standard that we invented. That appears to be what has happened in this article with SAR value less than 0.4W/kg. The standard given isn't backed up by any sources, and therefore appears to be original research. If such a standard does exist, and an editor can provide a source to back it up, I will happily withdraw my objection. I have no issue at all with the references for the SAR values for the individual phones. Ivanvector (talk) 22:07, 28 December 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) 19:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germany national rugby union team results[edit]

List of Germany national rugby union team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a repository for listing every single result of sporting teams. Espnscrum.com does that for rugby. Also nominating

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like the listing of the results for Australia (a tier 1 IRB nation with a big following in Australia) with Germany (which is tier 3, and has no Rugby World Cup experience). Germany as an international side are not very good; their biggest competition for many years was the team from British Forces Germany. The standard drops dramatically outside the top teams because certain countries don't have rugby traditions. Also, while a lucky, plucky and determined team sneak a 1-0 result in association football, rugby has many more opportunities for scoring, and is both physically and technically demanding. Germany would probably lose every time to the Australian domestic sides in the Super 14. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't find any policy that forbids or discourages such lists. The fact that the information in the lists is already available somewhere else outside Wikipedia is not a hinderance. If it wasn't, the list would be original research after all, and that is not allowed. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so we should put all international football, basketball, hockey, cricket, swimming, ice skating and volleyball results on WP as well? LibStar (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the three above listed articles, not football, basketball, hockey, cricket, swimming, ice skating and volleyball results. If you want to support your deletion request, please do so by quoting policy, not by saying article x is not notable, therefore article y isn't either. Don't stray from the subject! Your argument is the invertion of User:LibStar#Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, to quote yourself, here's a few more extremely weak and lazy arguments I've encountered to support deletion. Calistemon (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a relevant question, WP could list lots of things mentioned elsewhere and not be original research , and I think that's a weak argument for inclusion. The question is this list encyclopaedic or do you prefer to use your reasoning and expand WP to include to all international sporting results? Yes or no. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a relevant question, as it is entirely case based. In the case of the three above articles, I support to keep them as I consider them notable. In other cases, should the article be proposed for deletion and I was interested in the subject, I would not. For example, to pull two articles full of sports results out of the hat, 2008–09 Eastbourne Borough F.C. season is hardly notable to me while 2008–09 Manchester United F.C. season is. The argument that a similar article on a similar subject exists or doesn't exist and therefore this article should be kept or deleted is invalid. Notability is what matters, I would say. Calistemon (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I refer all keep voters to WP:NSEASONS. whilst major team season articles may be notable, this guideline clearly states WP is not a stats directory. These articles clearly are just stats directory. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does WP:NOTDIR have anything to do with this discussion? You've done a pretty poor job of justifying this nomination in the original nom, and now you're adding comments to try and rationalise it? This is neither a directory, indiscriminate list, nor about a non-notable topic. So how is deletion justified? I'd rather have these lists separate than merged with the parent article (as per WP:SIZE), so what is the problem? -- Shudde talk 08:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As per Calistemon. See no reason this list is unencyclopaedic. I hope this nom doesn't exist to try and make a point. - Shudde talk 22:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Since a policy has not been cited in the rationale for listing, I see no reason to delete because a reason to delete has not been given. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very fascinating, the fact that informations also exists somewhere else like rugbydata and espnscrum is not a valid reason to have these deleted....in previous years we refused to make 'statistical articles' because it was available on some other site only for those sites to be deleted and the information lost (not cached by google or archive) forever, I'm happy someone started this, wish they would create for other major nations as well especially all the Tier 1 teams and atleast the Top tier 2 teams..--Stemoc (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - would like to see more pages like this. 23:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per all of the above and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sri Lanka national rugby union team results, I reiterate, I fail to see the logic behind this nomination.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 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. Mkdwtalk 20:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Seung-Woo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pointless to delete this now when he's about to start playing for Bayer Leverkusen. —Kusma (t·c) 15:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying he will play is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and never grounds for notability. If and when he makes his debut, the article can be restored at the click of a button. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect, anyone can choose to redirect at their own discretion. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise as a treatment for depression[edit]

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

This page contains nothing that is not already mentioned more succinctly in Major depressive disorder and should redirect there, however none of the content needs to be preserved, so I am proposing an AfD LT910001 (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 December 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. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kenton[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, has been tagged for notability since April 2012. No RS supporting notability. MrBill3 (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there may be some support for notability but none has been presented. It has also come to my attention that an IP editor that has been editing the article has a conflict of interest that has not been disclosed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP on my talk page User_talk:Ronhjones#Jeremy_Kenton appears to be a new editor, and may not have full knowledge of our policies (unlike named accounts - IPs don't get welcome pages with the policy links), comparing histories - I don't see anything much of the IPs edits being current - thus the page is more or less the same as it's been all this year. The IP questioned the deletion of a PROD - I explained that I could restore it as a deleted PROD (but it would probably come here) or he could have it as a sub-page of a named account for someone to improve (ideally not himself - he was pointed to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). He chose the direct restore - it could have made a page for improvement, if one could get enough refs to support all what has been said on the page. Personally I would be included to drop it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. I have fixed the one dead link.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:COI editor's additions have been fact-based (about where the subject now works) rather than WP:PEACOCKery, so I don't see that as a significant issue - and any issues there would be a matter for normal editing rather than AfD. But as to the matter of notability, the article lacks supporting references (nor am I finding any from multiple searches), and even if everything was supported by references, I don't think there would be sufficient to demonstrate notability, whether professionally, as expert witness, nor as broadcaster. AllyD (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in the places I would expect for a high ranking doctor (Who's Who, Debrett's). I found one reference in The Guardian from 1983 ('Bodies are in, mind therapies are out. Just swallow the message and live youthfully for nearly ever" The Guardian (1959-2003); Aug 29, 1983;), which quotes him twice. Nothing more. Also, we prefer evidence based medicine for WP:MEDRS not pseudomedicine with added self-promotion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:40, 21 December 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. Mkdwtalk 20:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources indicating that this person is notable in any way. One of the previous AfDs was closed "delete" but for some reason that was not actioned.

Thank you for the info. It has no more reliable sources than it did before. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) delete - she does not appear to meet WP:SCHOLAR and there is little, if any, content about her. Her "out there" statements get quoted a bit, but probably just because they are so "out there". No one seems to have even taken them seriously enough to comment on how screwy they are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF with a h-index of 2. No nontrivial information found in reliable sources. -- 101.119.14.134 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this subjects fails WP:GNG since none of the sources give any significant coverage to Leuren Moret. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For this new deletion attempt I would expect that some serious lack of judgment is exposed in !voting or closing the previous keep AfD. Notable per GNG, WP:PROF or WP:Scholar is not applicable, she's an activist. --Pgallert (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
where exactly is the significant coverage by reliable third party sources about the subject? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are our notability guidelines not applicable to "activists"? And given the history of the different AfDs, I'm not inclined to attach too much value to them. --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is applicable, PROF is not. Because she is not teaching at a university. In my view she passes GNG per 650 hits on GBooks, arguments from the previous AfD, multiple articles on her in a national newspaper. --Pgallert (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS is not indication of notability. which specifically is the significant coverage by a reliable source about her? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on my other two arguments? Because, which of the Google books hits are relevant, is mentioned in the 4th nomination. On the contrary, given that there are so many indications of passing GNG, I would have expected the nominator (yes, I know that is not you) to tell us why that is not relevant. --18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
"indications" of meeting GNG are as worthless as a spec of sand in the Sahara. You are the person claiming that significant coverage in reliable sources exists, and you must actually produce the significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pgallert: You are right, she contributed to Japan Times, and other newspapers, such as Tehran Times, published multiple articles on her (the links are gone but I can remember that from my previous research). She is also quoted in multiple books, but I'm afraid she doesn't represent the "right opinion" and I guess that's why people want to delete the article so fervently. G-News Archives are defunct now so it will be easier to delete it. Btw, Tehran Times is a national newspaper but could it be considered a reliable source from the Western/Wikipedian point of view?? Major Russian newspapers often present a very different point than Western media but it doesn't appear in our articles. We refer to events unisono with BBC, the NYT and other "reliable" media (who themselves often refer to events in unison and parrot themselves) but it doesn't mean that there's no different point of view - good or wrong. We just don't accept things that are fringe from our point of view. But I'm sorry for digressing. The article is well written and informative and it is sought after by many readers. I don't see any benefits in deletion. To be fair, people commenting on this should read also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Leuren_Moret. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Painstaking collection of passing mentions and primary sources does not make for notability. bobrayner (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability. Despite Pgallert's claims, I was unable to corroborate multiple articles, or even one article on her in the national newspaper, that Pgallert mentioned, the Tehran Times. I checked. This BLP cites her under the following URL http://old.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=165352, but I can find no evidence of it existing now. Why do I mention this? Because the Wikipedia article on Tehran Times ALSO contains the following, "The paper lauded American Leuren Moret's efforts on radiation as a "crusade"" yet the same invalid URL is given as a source! --FeralOink (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Link rot. I can vouch that the link was active at some time in the past, and that it supported the statements. That it is no longer working is not a reason to remove or discount that reference. --Pgallert (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is correct that in principle a dead link should not be removed (because the problem may be transient or someone might be able to figure out the new URL, etc). However, it does pose a problem of verifiability, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Randykitty, this is not an issue of link rot. There is one dead link. That is all that we have to demonstrate verifiability. I am merely requesting a substitute. Please, do not take offense at my tone toward you? Your comments are very reasonable, and it is challenging for me to find the right voice online, as I am high-spirited.--FeralOink (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted the wikilink because I like to see all cards on the table. Cabal to suppress information? No, but media in different parts of the world present different interpretations. Mrs. Moret's work (which might be considered fringe in the US) was presented in national newspapers in other countries, she is frequently quoted in multiple books. To me, it is enough to say 'keep' the article as it is, and there's also some room for expansion. It isn't enough for you or maybe for others ... well, I can live with that. But I can say what I think, this is an open discussion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vejvančický I was thinking that too, regarding whether Tehran Times is considered acceptable as a source. There are three major online media, English language news sources in Iran. IR Press TV, FARS and one other, whose name I don't recall. I prefer FARS. However, Tehran Times does have decent economic commentary e.g. Sanctions therapy now: Iran's oil-addicted economy needs rehab. That was not blindly aligned with the social nor political agendas of the ruling theocratic regime of Iran, despite the fact that the Wikipedia article says that the Tehran Times "is the voice of the Islamic Revolution and the oppressed people in the world..." and "is run... by the MNA, an outlet for the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security (Iran)". I spent some time getting acquainted with Tehran Times, due to this Article For Deletion submission. I think that Iran has enough to contend with, without suffering reputational harm due to Wikipedia using Iranian news media, the very voice of the oppressed people in the world, to give Moret falsely-attributed legitimacy. Iran is very well-informed about nuclear energy, you know! Stuxnet expired on 24 June 2012, and Iran announced yesterday that they are manufacturing a new line of centrifuges for their nuclear power plants, or for some sort of uranium enrichment or other. The subject of this article is anti-science, anti-nuclear energy. I seriously doubt that an outlet for the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of Iran would be praising an American woman who claims that neutron bombs cause diabetes and were used to destroy the World Trade Centers. Neutron bombs are designed to kill people and leave property entirely intact. More relevant to Wikipedia world best practices: I am stunned that so many, well, maybe one or two, are claiming that because you recollect that there were news articles about the subject of this article, then it must be so, thus the article should not be deleted. i.e. "I can vouch that the link was active at some time in the past, and that it supported the statements. That it is no longer working is not a reason to remove or discount that reference." per Pgallert. I would like to draw more attention to this, have others weigh in, as it could have vast implications for Wikipedia under stare decisis. In other words,
IF a Wikipedia editor claims to remember a news article about something or someone THEN that is sufficient, and no news article need actually exist.
Unless such time as that is true, one must cite sources! --FeralOink (talk) 18:01, 28 December 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. Courcelles 08:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Valley Composite Squadron[edit]

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

Article for an individual Civil Air Patrol squadron, which is roughly akin to a local Boy Scout troop. Squardron's programs follow the national CAP's programs. No indication that this particular squadron has achieved notability, beyond its having a notable parent organization. WP:GNG and WP:SPIP --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 08:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons above:

Broomfield Composite Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Hennepin Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 08:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all in line with precedent; individual CAP/ATC squadrons are not considered notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As Buckshot notes, few cadet units or the like are individually notable per WP:ORG, and these particular units do not seem notable in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 by Bgwhite. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Jain (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unremarkable and non notable actor as per WP:N. Also would like to add that the article was created by user with the same name as the article. WP:CONFLICT Bluefist talk 06:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 21 December 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 deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Charter Schools on Economic Achievement[edit]

Impact of Charter Schools on Economic Achievement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NOT_PAPERS this article is written in a way that implies it is a scientific paper on the "Impact of Charter Schools on Economic Achievement". While the article does cite sources I fail to see how this topic needs to be on Wikipedia. Bluefist talk 06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal Dlohcierekim 08:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straight 8[edit]

Straight 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising, not notable, and bad spelling and grammar. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:23, 7 December 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) 05:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not as happy with the sourcing as I would otherwise be, as I'm kind of iffy on some of the ones I've added. I've also largely cleaned the article up to remove the puffery. In any case, there's enough to where I think this could pass as a weak keep overall. I found a bunch of brief mentions that I don't use towards notability (WP:TRIVIAL and all that), but there's just enough to where this might just barely squeak by. It's very close, in any case, so I won't argue too much if it isn't kept. No problem with the content being userfied, but considering that the original editor is long gone and likely had COI issues, I'm not sure who would be interested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking through their events they do not have their own but seem to be part of other festivals, such as (mainly) Soho Shorts, but maintain a prime time slot at them (evening, not 5-7am). Their sets include shorts from Cannes. It seems to have adequate media coverage, including a BBC short about them at Cannes. It may be niche and restrictive as methodology, but with 14 years of service it seems appropriate for wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 December 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. Mkdwtalk 20:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Active Short Tour (Hi-5 tour)[edit]

Super Active Short Tour (Hi-5 tour) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet any notability standards. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 December 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, Mkdwtalk 02:53, 21 December 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. Courcelles 08:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banaras Biradari[edit]

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

Every organization has a blog, and few of them are notable. All the sources here are self-published (except for two irrelevant ones that I deleted). No sources found online except for self-published ones. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 December 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, Mkdwtalk 02:52, 21 December 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 and redirect to Hindmarsh Island. (Is there some irony that I'm currently at a house on this Hindmarsh Island closing this debate?) Daniel (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindmarsh Island Forest[edit]

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

This appears to be about an only marginally notable place and it lacks information and sources. Proposed deletion tag was removed by the author. United States Man (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we started removing all the marginally notable pages, we'd rape the project. (We could start with all the train and bus schedules...) <grin> Flag it as a stub/non-referenced and let it grow.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marginally notable is still notable. I would further note that the page was created by a newbie (and one who does not seem to be self promoting in any way, shape, or form) and that after they legitimately removed the PROD, following that up immediately with an AfD is against the spirit of wp:BITE Neonchameleon (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The PROD was not legitimately removed. There are still no sources on that page. United States Man (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. You don't have to give any reason for removing a PROD or even have to change things. It says "You are encouraged, but not required, to also:" The exception is the wp:BLPPROD Neonchameleon (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nothing in major Australian search engine trove [11], and nothing when I searched within .gov.au for Australian government. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Are you telling us there is no forest? (I looked a Google maps and didn't anything I would call a forest.) If so, that would be a question of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and a vote changer.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Hindmarsh Island and there's a forest there ("The main fire hazard on Hindmarsh Island is the large forest plantation"[12], page 20) but perhaps there is a conspiracy to make us think there is a Hindmarsh Island Forest. There are lots of tourist ads saying you can walk in the forest on the island but maybe when you get there you become sadly disappointed. Thincat (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hindmarsh Island appears to have a forest plantation according to google maps satellite view (and the article gives grid references) - personally I think that if it calls itself a forest it has delusions of grandeur. But it certainly has sections that are tree covered and are considered a bushfire hazard risk - and referred to as a forest in the assessment risk linked. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combine with Hindmarsh Island.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. United States Man (talk) 01:36, 22 December 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. Courcelles 08:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kitsune[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced promotional biography. The article sources are closely affiliated, tertiary sources and minor web sites. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - MrX 01:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:37, 5 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:39, 21 December 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. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John "Korney" Kwiatkowski[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability. JDDJS (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm unsure about his notability, but a redirect or merge to Polish mob would be better than deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to change my mind on deletion, if somebody could find a snippet, or at least a page number. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For "Criminals and Politicians", the snippet view identifies as pp.241-242, and for "Only Saps Work", the snippet view identifies as p.148. -- Whpq (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am prepared to agree with user Soman.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Vodka Day (USA)[edit]

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

Not notable. Just mentions, not refs that show notability . All such days have mentions. DGG ( talk ) 10:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with DGG this article shows no proof of notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NorthAmerica1000. That's sufficient for a GNG pass, in my view: multiple instances of independently published substantial coverage. I agree with the name change as well. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Northamerica1000's sources and rename per BDD. Note that the list of sources cover National Vodka Day for four years. Ivanvector (talk) 06:37, 22 December 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. Mkdwtalk 21:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Howson[edit]

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

Radio and television personality whose claims of notability are resting entirely on primary and deprecated sources (Tumblr blogs, etc.), with no evidence of any substantial coverage in reliable sources even after a Google hunt. My conflict of interest sense is also tingling heavily here: the article is substantively identical (only a few minor wording tweaks) to a version that was posted twice in 2011 by User:Chowson13 and speedied as a poorly sourced autobiography both times, and while a different username created the article this time, that username matches the Twitter handle of a person whose feed consists largely of Chris Howson retweets. As always, I'm not opposed to future recreation if somebody can create a good and properly sourced article about him, but Wikipedia is not a public relations database on which people are entitled to have an article for promotional purposes. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete I get nothing significant on my searches despite him being a media personality. But if we delete I'm going to suggest given nom's comments that we wp:SALT due to repeated creations. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:05, 21 December 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. Courcelles 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JP Orbeta[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be WP:NOTABLE - part of a series on Ayala Corporation, this one started by a user with Ayala in his/her username. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A substantial proportion of this article appears to be copied from the subject's LinkedIn page so is effectively a WP:COPYVIO. AllyD (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject is clearly a man with a series of corporate jobs, but I see no demonstration of biographical notability for an encyclopaedia. He has a couple of awards in HR, but these do not appear to be exceptional in themselves. AllyD (talk) 09:17, 21 December 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. Mkdwtalk 21:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okyanos Heart Institute[edit]

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

promotional article, with mostly promotional sources. Possibly there should bean article, but if so it should be started over. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion, nor need promotion be so strong as to be G11 to justify deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • wp:HOSPITAL wants one non-local in depth source for a hospital to be notable. I can't find anything. Plenty of Freeport or Bahamas - but nothing further afield that's in depth. Therefore delete Neonchameleon (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comment and nom. Not notable, v. promotional. --LT910001 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 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. Courcelles 08:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Kern III[edit]

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

Mayor of a township is not notable. accepted from AfC, but I can;t figureo ut why. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a mayor of a township is not an inherent claim of notability, but being the youngest mayor in the state, accompanied by reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim, does meet the notability standard. The article needs work, but there are sources in the article already that can be used to expand the article and there are ample additional sources available about the subject of the article to justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A person who held the status of being the youngest-ever mayor elected in a state or country might possibly qualify for an article on that basis (although even then I'd argue that the initial flurry of human interest coverage that greeted his election wouldn't be enough to support an article if he couldn't sustain a meaningful degree of "career notability" coverage after that faded) — but merely happening to be the youngest mayor who happens to be holding office at one particular point in time doesn't really cut it, no. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smalltown mayor with no particularly strong evidence of notability and no non-local media coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no major coverage found. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing I've seen in the guideline for notability of people grants inherent notability to the youngest, oldest, shortest, tallest, fattest, thinnest, richest or poorest mayor in a state. Such a claim bypasses and ignores the established notability guideline. Presently, reference 1 is his township website, which is not independent. References 2, 3, 4, and 6 are a local news website, which only shows he is of local interest to people in the Lehigh Valley. Reference 5 makes no mention of him at all. This does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NPOL, is not a person who has held a statewide office. As other editors have noted, being youngest ever could be notable but youngest currently is likely not. No significant coverage either way. Ivanvector (talk) 06:29, 22 December 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. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association of British Introduction Agencies[edit]

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

I do not think the references support the notability of the material. National trade associations can be notable, but not necessarily. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:ORG. coverage merely confirms it exists but does not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 23 December 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. The BLP problems are insurmountable. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Chrétien[edit]

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

Michel Chrétien is the adopted son of Jean Chrétien and Aline Chrétien. He is a private citizen and not a public figure, and is utterly non-notable in the Wikipedia sense. Sources exist on him, mostly because of his criminal record, and also because he's the son of a prime minister, but he does not pass the notability guidelines on account of his criminal activities, nor does he inherit the notability of his adoptive father, nor is there any reliable source out there that covers him in any kind of details other than mention the that he's a) the son of PM, b) has a criminal record). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Michel Chrétien (scientist), the brother of Jean Chrétien, a well-known and decorated medical researcher. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some significant coverage to write an article with: [19][20]. The second source seems to indicate Michel has become iconic ("the elephant in the room") of the issue of whites adopting Native children in Canada. One thing to remember is that WP:INHERIT is an essay called "Arguments to avoid making during an AfD" ie. I GreenC believe Michel is notable because he is the son of the PM. No one is making that argument and so INHERIT doesn't apply. The INHERIT essay doesn't trump actual sources or GNG, even if those sources are discussing Michel in the context of family relationships, for notability purposes the existence of sources is what matters. -- GreenC 08:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if he's only notable for his father then he can get a paragraph on his father's page (which is all he needs) Neonchameleon (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no transfer of notability by relation, his criminal charges are non-notable, and his adoption is not covered in much depth, more as an example of a notable broken process but his adoption wasn't any more notable than all the rest. One of GreenC's links refers to him as "Michael" Chrétien, but I didn't find sources under either spelling variation. Ivanvector (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Neonchameleon puts it best. The 'criminal charges' section is NN per BLP1E, and if you take out that, there's no other real assertion of notability outside his father. Daniel (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acción por los Niños[edit]

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

The first source merely mentions it, & the others are not independent. This was accepted from AfC, but I wouldn't have done so. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deferring to Spanish Wikipedia here who speedy deleted it for not passing their version of the GNG. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This can alwasy be recreated if (and only if) he becomes notable Courcelles 08:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Morrissey[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BELIEVE ME! This player is of HUGE interest! He is being scouted and offered contracts by several clubs in the Championship (2nd Tier English Football League). He has been in several newspaper articles and has been on a professional contract since the start of the 2013 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corkykid (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 December 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, policy basis for deleting arguments substantially stronger than the keep ones. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mohney[edit]

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

Masses of refs but do any of them satisfy our requirements for independent reliable sources? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - Interviews and magazine sources are available by large amounts, found much information regarding this artist online, found proof of all knowledge, artist does in fact have his Professional single in production. Article being deleted would be pointless since I found his single is scheduled for a release in January or early February 2014. Keep indeed. - Contributor, also edited the page to make it a bit more professional. Interesting individual. 19:10, 21 December 2013
  • Delete Although a few sources exist, there is no evidence of notability. There are some sources, but the sources do not seem to be independent of the subject of the article. There is a strong sense that the article (and possibly some of the sources) were written by the subject or someone close to him. The fact remains this article is about someone who released a mix tape last month. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems that the sources may not all be terrific, but the few that are give a good picture of his success. Plus it is verifiable that this artist has a distribution deal with RED Distribution which can be found on many sites. He is definitely involved in the professional business, and I think this page would only be expanded upon in the very near future as he releases his single, which does meet our criteria for a relevant person. --11:40, 22 December 2013
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Escape (band)[edit]

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

Band with self released albums and fair grounds and party play. They do not meet WP:band. I have been unable to find verifiable information from significant coverage in reliable sources so i do not see evidence of meeting WP:GNG. I found no coverage at allmusic, billboard and/or rolling stone. I found no relevant tweets that might lead me to sourcing. The ReverbNation link did not work. When I dug deeper I did not find evidence of notability. Dlohcierekim Dlohcierekim 00:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_December_21&oldid=1142632711"