Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was made in error, admitted by the nominator, He meant to nominate something else he says. Speedy keep as no chance of deletion (non-admin closure) gwickwire^talk_edits 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California Department of Rehabilitation[edit]

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

There is already an article on the California Department of Corrections see CDCR TucsonDavidU.S.A. 23:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corrections runs the prisons. Rehabilitation deals with injured and disabled people. They are two completely different departments, and both are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you vote. There is a better article already please see it at CDCR. And then look at the talk of the one I nominated. As it has COI issues.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 00:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Sorry I may have confused the two departments.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 00:18, 7 February 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) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago de Tezanos[edit]

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

He exists, but I can't find the requisite level of RS coverage to confer notability for our purposes. Nor does this blp have any refs or ELs. Could perhaps be speedied, but to be safe I brought it here. Tagged for notability for nearly half a decade. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about him. I did find this press release which can be used to confirm existence, but not notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is his website: http://www.santiagodetezanos.com/. "Team leader architect" does not establish notability. Hoverfish Talk 16:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 February 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. The keep camp demostrates the notability while the delete side just say WP:Not notable. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Kansas Avenue Bridge[edit]

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

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge. Dough 48 72 23:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article, like the one previously nominated for AFD, has no references, and merely asserts that the bridge in question exists. There is no "inherent notability" for every bridge which someone states exists or once existed. Unless someone can find multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, deletion is the appropriate outcome. If multiple bridge articles have been nominated, perhaps that is a result of someone creating multiple articles about non-notable bridges, rather than a demonstration of inappropriate action by the nominator. Edison (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - This bridge is not notable. –TC N7 JM 11:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:12, 4 February 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, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all bridges are notable, but this one is. It replaced a historic bridge that was the only bridge from Topeka to North Topeka, and its location has been blamed for the decline of North Topeka's business district, plus there was a fly-off built on it in 2004, which generated some coverage. This bridge definitely appears to pass WP:GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequate sources showing to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources show "70 years of history" in significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very Notable per the source at http://cjonline.com/stories/080507/loc_189135761.shtml Bridge Disasters don't happen everyday and are in nature very notable. Sources about it are harder to find since it happened in the 1960s before the days of wide use of the Internet. Deletion of this page would hinder a possible creation of a Melan Arch Bridge (Topeka) or Melan Arch Bridge Disaster article as much information on this page will be split towards that article. If deleted I will not be able to use that information on that new article unless restored per the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License in Wikipedia. I am currently working on this bridge article on another site and I don't want to lose any sources about it here or there. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 15:26, 12 February 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) 00:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santonu Kumar Dhar[edit]

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

Declined CSD. Bio about an Indian magazine editor whose claims to notability are association (sources used to assert the notability of the people that are claimed he collaborated with), the creation of a magazine, and for having interviewed an actress. After some research I do not think this person meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:PEOPLE at this time. Gong show 03:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherited notability is of no use. As for sources, there's nothing out there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Inadequate coverage in reliable sources indicates it is at least WP:TOOSOON to call this person notable. JFHJr (㊟) 18:25, 10 February 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) 00:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Goyette[edit]

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

Allegations that she had an affair with an actor-politician fall a long way short of WP:BIO. She belongs as at most a passing mention in the article on Arnold Schwarzenegger, where she is currently unmentioned. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notable for one event. Mcewan (talk) 21:44, 8 February 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) 00:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms (Sweden)[edit]

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

This article is essentially a list of translations from Swedish to Finnish. Whilst it might be suitable for Swedish and/or Finnish Wikipedia, it is unnecessary in English Wikipedia. If anyone needs to know the Finnish name for a Swedish place, then the interwiki links on the place's article would help. Bazonka (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a list of what places in Sweden is named in Finnish, and completely unneccessary for Wikipedia. Had it been the other way around, what places in Finland was named in Swedish, it might have been encyclopedic given that Swedish are one of the official languages in Finland. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually Finnish is one of the five officially recognised minority languages of Sweden, but I'm not sure that makes this list suitable for Wikipedia. /FredrikT (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mentoz, it fails the basics of WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, Millennium Stamp (a commentary)[edit]

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

Unsourced article consisting of semi-coherent original research. Seems to be a personal reflection or essay. No indication of notability of this editor's commentary about a stamp. - Mr X 21:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lickety-split, as I agree with everything the nominator said. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be either a personal point of view on Wikipedia's article section Millennium stamp#Canada or on the stamps described there. In either case, it does not satisfy the neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Reads like a draft for Millennium stamp#Canada, albeit with no attribution. Author does intend to add some content, so possibly created in the wrong place. Funny ^Pika! 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ - Setting aside the opening of the article, which is a preamble to the meat of the article, I see nothing that would be "semi-coherent" as stated in the nomination, nor is the body a personal reflection or essay. There is an element of original research, but the middle portion of the article is a straightforward assertion of facts which although unsourced, are likely sourceable in some fashion. I would have recommended a merge to Millennium stamp#Canada, but without sourcing, that would be problematic. Userfication woould allow a new editor to shape the material to be in line with wikipedia policies. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I said semi-coherent is because of the strange ALL CAPS heading "PREAMBLE" and phrases like "Therefore, the postage stamps presented here are products which celebrate..." and "I am commenting with the intent to add to the foot marked article under “Millennium stamp” – Wikipedia where it cited inconclusively a Canada Post extract". If that seems coherent to you, then fine, but to my eyes, it seems like a copypaste combined with a personal commentary. As far as I know, we do not include commentary articles in Wikipedia. We can userfy the content and hope that the editor comes back to learn about our guidelines and policies so that they can craft a proper article, assuming that the subject is notable, but I doubt they will - Mr X 16:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've changed my mind. I didn't realize there is a fully developed article at Canada Post millennium stamps rather than just the small descripiton at Millennium stamp#Canada. Given the unsourced nature of material that is in the AFD'ed article, any work to source and develop information would more easily be done by adding directly to the main article versus developing material in a user draft. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced original essay. Dunno if you want to be either licking or splitting collectible stamps though, Jim... Carrite (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Whpq. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 February 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 speedily deleted by User:KillerChihuahua under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Felix 'PewDiePie' Kjellberg[edit]

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

This effectively self-sourced biography does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Most of the content is descriptions of the video games he plays. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable YouTuber with yet another "article under actual user's handle blocked for creation six times already" spin on it. I'm never impressed by article editors that round consensus by putting articles under different titles, and article here is an insufferable puff piece, and an easy candidate for A7 speedying. Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; I'm not finding evidence that this person currently meets WP:GNG or WP:PEOPLE. Gong show 03:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There is a user draft which at one point was at PewDiePie but moved back since the user didn't want it in article space just yet. That user draft is infinitely superior, but still falls short of WP:GNG due to most of the sources being PR. This version of the article, however, is blatant advertising and promotion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2013 Alabama bunker hostage crisis. The arguments not to redirect were taken into account but redirect simply had stronger support. As for the merge suggestions, there really isn't anything to merge. J04n(talk page) 11:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Albert Poland, Jr.[edit]

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

Delete and do not redirect (as an improbable redirect): Completely non-notable as victim. My condolences to his family and loved ones, but this article is a blatant (albeit unpaid) obit and nothing more. Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the crime, which I consider notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. The main article on the crime is also of questionable notability. The victim of this tragedy is definitely not notable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2013 Alabama school bus driver murder and child abduction. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 06:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest KEEP And another good article crashes because it is not notable enough. It really saddens me that you editors think the heroic efforts of this man do not deserve the time of day in Wikipedia. I remember when Wikipedia first started, there were so many good articles about local communities and events. Then some Editor in the inner circle decided that there should be a policy on Notability. Charles Poland has been nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor. He is considered a hero in Great Britain, India, China and Australia. Yet the "Editors" Of Wikipedia scream that this is not Notable enough. If you will note, there are not as many articles being created due to the average use walking away from Wikipedia over the stupid Notable rule. Because of your policy on Notability, I will have to really think hard before I join any protest organized by Wikipedia. Its time to get rid of Notability. I wonder how many articles on local communities have died due to this. Its sad that no one will ever see any article that is not approved by the Inner Circle of Wikipedia. This is my Opinion. I think its awful that the Editors want to Delete this article. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Poland will continue to be represented on Wikipedia, and his actions noted. It's just that his story will be embedded in the main article, where it is more likely to be seen and read, than in a standalone article under a relatively obscure name. His story can be summed up as "he drove a school bus and was killed protecting his young passengers". What more can be said, aside from any subsequent awards? WWGB (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, he can't receive the CMoH, as that is only awarded to military personnel. Secondly, no articles on local communities have been deleted, verifiable geographic locations are notable. Finally, please assume good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect: Redirect would be okay, but with the complexity of the name, the need for a redirect would be extremely unlikely. The crime itself is of debatable notability, a debate currently taking place on the talk page for the crime. The death of the bus driver, though tragic, is rather anecdotal to the case, as the perpetrator apparently had no intention of killing anyone on the bus, so long as he got the children he wanted. Mr. Poland's actions were heroic, by definition, but in the end may or may not have objectively saved the lives of anyone. The perpetrator wanted two children, and there was no reason to believe anyone else would have been in danger at that time. Mr. Poland did what just about any self-respecting adult or adolescent would have done. He said "Hell, no!" and blocked the way. He lost his life because of it, the ultimate sacrifice. But he really was simply collateral damage. Merging doesn't seem necessary, as there's little more (relevant) to say about him than what's already in the main article. IrishCowboy (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt heroic, but I recommend updating this stub with more relevant, notable info like the Congressional Medal nomination, and not just copy and paste the obituary... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.17.104 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any relevant content regarding the driver can be covered in the article about the event. --auburnpilot talk 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clear case of WP:BLP1E also....William 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2013 Alabama bunker hostage crisis. I believe the redirect to be reasonable enough, and redirects are cheap - to the point they take up less server space than a deletion does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW, before the seven day mark. There is a well established guideline at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which states that high schools are generally presumed as notable if they can be verified through reliable sources. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moncton Christian Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable school, enrollment of 120. No significant independent coverage. JFH (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that secondary schools are presumed notable, even small ones. This is a K-12 school, so it qualifies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing me to a policy or guideline? --JFH (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That essay only says that it is common for these discussion (which are supposed to be policy-based) often end that way. It is contrary to common sense that a school this small would be notable, and the complete absence of any significant independent coverage backs that up. --JFH (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be contrary to your notion of common sense, but not to mine. There are many rural areas where a school of 120 students would be considered large, or at least average. Since we have no shortages of paper or ink, a decision to allow articles on any secondary school seems a reasonable one to me. Reliable sources are available and the consensus is there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Per significant precedent, secondary schools typically qualify for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:SNOW close. Enrollments, whether high or low, do not de-legitimize a secondary school. As described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES -- while an essay, it's possibly one of the most heavily weighted and cited essay's on XfD. Mkdw ^talk 05:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that high schools are notable if existence is confirmed. The reason being: well-written biographies mention high schools and these links should be blue, not red. Moreover, high schools are assumed to be the subject of coverage for sporting teams, drama clubs, etc. and are generally community landmarks. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well established high school. Significant instituiton in its area. The way forward is to expand the article, which is the way stubs grow, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 01:46, 11 February 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 withdrawn - I still don't think the sources presented demonstrate notability, but clearly the consensus is against me. SmartSE (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Squitieri[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC. None of the sources given are about the subject, but are instead merely articles he has written. The independent sources that I can find, aren't really the best to use to write a neutral NLP article, since they are about alleged plagiarism or about doing covert PR for the Bahraini government. Even if these sources were suitable, I still don't think they are sufficiently in depth to merit the inclusion of this article. SmartSE (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Writing biographies of journalists is tough because material by them is so much more common than material about them. His career is so long and diverse that I judge him notable, and it is just a matter of finding good sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It says something about his notability when his resignation is covered by The New York Times and Washington Post.[1] There's also an Associated Press biography and all those awards he won, plus his post USA Today activities. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no "quit" in Squitieri. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, our rules don't work very well for journalists. Squitieri has however made himself notable not just by a long career but by winning awards, and at least by being written about when he resigned. It's hard to dispute his notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more citations, and will continue to upgrade as per your good suggestions above. In creating the article I tried to use other existing journalists of note as a guide for proper citations, so the Squitieri article is in line with numerous existing articles in terms of its citations. If you have other suggestions, please feel free to note on my talk page. Sacoca (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Fantastic[edit]

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

Article is about a hip-hop duo but makes no claims to notability and is basically a discography. Sources are an LA Times blog interview and the band's website. The duo have been active for only a couple of years and I can't see any evidence of success/recognition/reliable coverage online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 11:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is the LA Times interview. But I can't find any significant coverage about the duo beyond this one interview. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as too soon - Despite performing multiple detailed Google News searches and including the album and EPs, I have only found an LA Weekly article here, a blog here, another interview here and another pigeonsandplanes.com short blog here. I also searched for third-party coverage for the The Sims 3: Late Night song but found nothing relevant. Although hip hop can be an obscure genre, I would have expected some hip hop magazine articles. I have no objection to userfying the article or a future article when the group is notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 8 February 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. Going through the discussion here, I have discounted the votes from single purpose accounts who, at best, appear to have been recruited for voting in this AFD. Such canvassing skews the numbers and we cannot therefore take them into account unless we are willing to compromise the integrity of the AFD system. Many of the keep votes that are discounted were providing rationales that are irrelevant to inclusion and deletion anyway.

The valid argument remaining on the keep side is Miniapolis, who pointed out the product reviews in the article as relevant sourcing. However, she has not received any further support for his viewpoint, and while product reviews are relevant in an article on the product it is far from clear that they provide a sufficient basis for notability. (Many sorts of products are tested or reviewed in some sort of magazine, and declaring that each of the test subjects can then have an article using that review as a source would allow a much wider range of articles than what appears to be current practice.) Miniapolis' point is valid, but it is not a deal-breaker that mandates deletion, and with the consensus against her, she winds up being a dissenting voice here.

As for the other arguments about the product being mentioned in lyrics, a look through the sources showed that the only one making a point out of it was the company website behind this product. That is insufficient basis for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raw (rolling paper)[edit]

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

Article is a non-notable product and does not contain any sources. Article was declined for speedy deletion due to it being a product. Agree that it does not fit speedy deletion criteria so bringing it here for discussion. Unable to locate any reliable and independent sources to support any claims in the article. Plenty of retail websites selling the product but nothing talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and depth of coverage in reliable sources. MoreLessLEI (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find sufficient sources to indicate that this product meets the general notability guidelines. Peacock (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - Person who nominated it is a competitor, upset that their Jaspen Rolling Papers page was speedy deleted (view his contributory history, his only contributions were to create his Jaspen page, his Jaspen pictures, then when deleted he went after the pages of the brands he says he copied in his other posts). Even with a COI as big as this Jaspen guy's, the page still does need to be reviewed by admins. Please allow admins as much time as possible to review or, just speedy keep and thanks! Docvegetal (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing you can do is address the sourcing in the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the admin who declined the speedy. Although I quickly saw that it didn't qualify for A7 speedy (as MoreLess notes, A7 doesn't include products), I initially planned to speedy delete it as G11 (spam), until I noticed that the earliest versions were much more neutral. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree 100% with your assessment about not speedy deleting the article. I should have went here instead from the beginning. Consensus would be better for this article anyway. At least in my opinion. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP Looks like article is cleaned properly and nomination was not genuine. Brand is notable, probably one of the biggest out there by now. Section should be added for the new products though. Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So instead of making it more neutral, we are going to promote it by adding new products? As with the other page nominated for deletion, there needs to be significant coverage from independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Just because it is "probably one of the biggest out there" doesn't make it notable. It is what the sources say about it that makes it notable, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you can point me to those sources, I would be glad to take a look and reconsider my nomination. I am also curious if any of the trade magazines that you write for have been used as references on any of these articles. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment This page has been nominated before, perhaps by the same person. Please see the archived discussion and the result was KEEP. Decision to Keep Raw (rolling paper) Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

That was a nomination for deletion of a Talk Page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:RAW (rolling paper)/Archive1, not of the article . --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting too old for this... Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Music Quotes - While music quotes may contain the words Raw, how do we know they are talking about Raw Rolling Papers? Also, they are considered "trivial mentions" and not "significant coverage." Please refer to Wikipedia general notability guidelines on significant coverage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First nobody gets "too old for that". Second to the Jaspen papers page creator MoreLessLEI your comment does not seem genuine. Singers singing about raw papers, long ones and you are saying they're not singing about raw papers? Moreover I don't think there truly is anything I could do to get a personMoreLessLEI who created a page Jaspen Rolling papers, then had their page deleted, then they tried speedying brands that compete with Jaspen Rolling papers, then when that didn't work they tried listing the pages as regular deletions, to change their mind. It would be like asking the NRA to allow an anti-gun bill to pass... Your conflict is so large that I am asking you to stop commenting on pages that are related to Jaspen Rolling papers or its competitors. Allow admins to make the decision for themselves, as they did when they deleted your Jaspen Rolling papers page (sorry, I know you're upset about it but revenge is not the way to resolve your anger). On the Jaspen Papers website it preaches taking the high road which I hope you'll take. Docvegetal (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for your misguidance. First, I am not a competitor of any of these companies. I have used the products and I did create the Jaspen page. I do not believe that you were the one who recommended it to be deleted. I believe it was an IP address user so I am not sure what your involvement is there unless you are using multiple accounts, know the IP user, or have some close connection that would give you a COI. I do not care about Jaspen or their "high road" as again I am not them. As far as allowing admins to make a decision, I have not interfered with that it any way. You on the other hand have continued to attack me for nominating the pages as opposed to supplying information that would lead an administrator to agree that the articles are notable. I do have the right to state my case and will gladly listen to your side and change my point of view. I simply ask that you state "why the article is notable" despite it being just another brand of rolling papers; and, "point me to the sources" that establish that notability. That is your best case as opposed to attacking me for my point of view. Again, I will be glad to reconsider my recommendation and it would be helpful to persuade administrators if you are able to answer the two points above.--MoreLessLEI (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm incorrect or misguided. Let's look at the images you uploaded and the release you gave when you uploaded them in OTRS. You uploaded them via email and released them as the author 'Jaspen Papers'. Immediately upon your brand page Jaspen_Papers being speedy deleted by Admins you went in and asked that the brands which compete with Jaspen papers to be deleted too. Is any of this incorrect? Docvegetal (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to stay off this page at your request, but you do not seem to get it. Yes, the image was uploaded by me and the image was uploaded with the permission of Jaspen papers. If I upload a picture of a Chevy Corvette, does that mean that I am an executive with GM? Please understand copyright laws and the policies that govern Wikiepdia regarding use of images prior to making any additional accusations. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we focus on whether the subject of the article meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia please? Docvegetal, you need to address the quality of the sources in the article; significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are needed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I ask you for assistance? No matter how many articles and links I ad though, the conflicted nominator is going to say they're not enough because of his conflict. Could I ask you to do a quick google search and assist in putting up more references. Just added a few more myself. I think if you read this you'll understand just how notable this brand is. Remember that we have an entire topic page dedicated to Rolling paper. RAW is one of the biggest and certainly the most authentic rolling paper brand in the world; http://www.rawthentic.com/alcoy.html Please have a look at the link and you'll understand. Docvegetal (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the brown one all my friends smoke, very notable Calqwatch (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)— Calqwatch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very old and innovative paper; I think raw is one of the most copied brands now for I have seen many others now that suddenly look like it. I see over 12 references, definitely keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacNighttt (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — MacNighttt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article should be kept here simply because the person nominated it did so wrongly. It is a good brand of papers and one of the best I have ever used. I think there are plenty of people wanting this kept so please do so and warn the person who nominated it. --SemiSweetMorsal (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — SemiSweetMorsal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I have to agree with the keep voters here. Raw is mentioned in songs all the time. If famous people are using them and singing about them, how can they not be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseTwist (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — WiseTwist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: The bombardment of SPAs here is outstanding. The smell of sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry is strong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to agree. I have been trying to tay off of the page as I believe that User:Docvegetal is making my case for me by adding in refernces that do not come close to showing notability. However, this is getting rediculous. There are many accounts on here who have simply decided to come on and vote. Finally, Mr. Doc is also canvassing Wikipedi for keep votes [2], [3] which has to be a violation of Wikipedia. If they are canvassing for votes here, I wonder about how they are canvassing for votes outside of Wikiepdia which may also explain the number of first time editors who voted keep on this article. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in any reliable sources independant of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. J04n(talk page) 11:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now sourced (although the bare URLs need cleaning up). I've seen worse. Miniapolis 14:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Article is now sourced" - That is true. Is has been sourced for a week or so. The problem is that the sources are either from insignificant sources, do not cite the content of the article, are passing mentions (the music), and just do not meet the criteria for references to establish notability. Can you point out the specific sources that you feel are good to support an article in Wikipedia? Also, "seen worse" - I have too. The problem is that WP:OSE would come into play. Unfortunately, I do not see keeping an article simply because there are "worse" articles out there. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The product reviews (about the article's subject) are appropriate for an article of this type. Miniapolis 03:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete - Can we get this over with per Wikipedia:Snowball clause? No one who has voted keep has been able to point out the reason why the article is notable. Those who state it is notable refer to references that are self-published, are not independent, and do not even come close to establishing notability for this page. If there are no references now, then the page should be created after there are. The one-time voters for "keep" are only votes, not a consensus. As this process will continue with new editor "keep" votes and the addition of poor references, I see no need to continue running it through the process. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 18:03, 15 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tastic Film[edit]

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

This appears to have escaped into the wild before it was ready. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tastic Film where it was marked as not ready. Seems non notable. No reliable references. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable resources provided as one of the resources is a government run website the other is IMDB who review and check all information submitted to their site also the article contains first hand information from James Rush the founder of the company for who i work. If these are not reliable sources let us know what you mean and we will add them but honestly i don't see how you get more reliable that a government run website. johnjjjames (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2013 (GMT)

Comment: Several points:

That something exists does not make it notable. Companies House simply validates existence
IMDB is not a Reliable Source
This article was pasted into the main namespace after rejection at Articles for Creation
"We"? Wikipedia accounts are for one person only

The contention that something is notable and verifiable is down to the editors asserting that it is. If you feel it is both ready to be out on its own and is notable, please assert it and verify it, otherwise it has no place here yet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So firstly companies house validates it exists and therefore verified the pages name. I have just added another site which show details regarding it location and another on there own website which contains details regarding to Tastic Film's publication/ magazine. Also i created another article for review under the same name simply because the article had been updated and it was not being recognized after numerous days + the article has information provided from the very company in questions founder i really do not understand the problem here as all other wiki pages provide are mostly mixed up, promotional and opinionated news articles on random websites. If you would like I can email to you from my company email verifying that i am a staff member at Tastic Film. You can view the newly added References at Tastic Film Wiki Article in Question johnjjjames (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2013 (GMT)

Comment the article at Articles for Creation is not being discussed for deletion. We are dscussiing the one you chose to put into man namespace before it was ready. The simplest thing you can do is to ask for the main namespace one to be deleted yourself, as author, and work on the Articles for Creation version. Take the advice of those who review it there. The article in main namespace asserts no notability and has no place in main namespace. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a detailed explanation on your talk page. I hope that will resolve your confusion. The main namespace page needs to be deleted without prejudice to a later recreation form the AFC article. You will need the aid of an administrator. I have explained all this for you there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to merge the two articles from the user page and the "wild" I do not really understand how there ended up being two in different places. Also when you say not yet ready just wondering what you mean ? Also I was wondering if there was any way i can delete the user page for Tastic Film and keep the main page as it has really got the Tastic Film logo listed highly on search engines. please get back to me and thanks for the help you have been. James Rush 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page here it is a shame that you deleted my advice. This deletion discussion must run its course. Wikipedia does not care about your logo and search engines. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This search shows that Tastic Film has no coverage that Google can find in mainstream media. Accordingly I have flagged the article for speedy deletion, which is being contested currently. According to the contest note an artcile is likey to appear in some days about Tastic Film, but I can;t see how that will propel it to notability. We need to clear the main namespace article out and encourage the oroginator, whose company it is, to work on the AFC namespace article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. First person sourcing and IMDB are not acceptable. Little or no apparent reliable sources to support notability. Speedy was an appropriate course of action, contested by a WP:COI account. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through everything related to this and in my opinion it is in the matter of publi interest even if the sources are weak I believe this page should remain. (Nick Greenson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.245.75 (talk • contribs) — 82.132.245.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability appear. Hairhorn (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - existence is not notability. MSJapan (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a one-man band to me. Presumably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that johnjjjames as the main contributor and self identified owner of Tastic Films has been indefinitely blocked from En Wikipedia for making legal threats. 93.97.3.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has self identified on Commons as the same person and has made recent edts evading the block here (the user is not blocked there). I have reverted the edits here as vandalism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:58, 11 February 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) 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Hill (politician)[edit]

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

Fails to meet the general notability guideline. Was elected as mayor of Townsville in 2012 and was a failed candidate in an earlier election but there doesn't seem to be much else about her that I could find. She's just one Jenny Hill among many. AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mayor of a regionally important city of nearly 200,000 people, I believe that she meets WP:POLITICIAN. Searching Google News Archives wiith terms: "Jenny Hill" Townsville shows plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Here's a detailed profile of her in a reliable, independent source with plenty of biographical information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, she's actually the mayor of only the Townsville local government area, which has a population of 174,462.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 01:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I consider the mayor of any city of over 100,000 people to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and in some circumstances have supported keeping biographies of mayors of smaller cities. My understanding is that Townsville is the one of the largest, probably the second largest city in Queensland. So, regional importance is a factor as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to me that she meets the requirements outlined above and having recently been elected, she will probably become more notable.Jab843 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mayor of reasonably major city, long-time high-profile figure - I live at the other end of the country and have known who she was for years. There's enough sources on her to take it to FA if someone had the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Wandsworth. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Barrie Primary School[edit]

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

Notability not established and no useful or detailed information here on the school itself $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 14:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see this being anything other than another of many run-of-the-mill primary schools. I can't see any significant coverage about it online. Unfortunately I can't see any appropriate place to merge the info, because Battersea and Wandsworth articles don't have lists of local schools. Sionk (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Wandsworth, where it is already listed. PWilkinson (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. I can't see anything in the article or search results that indicates or suggests notability. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list article. some contnet might be merged into its entry. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 11 February 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) 00:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Placeopedia[edit]

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

How is this notable? Sources include alexa listing (pretty low) and an archive.org entry for... itself. No coverage in resliable sources is shown, so this fails GNG pretty badly, I'd say. Notability tagged since 2009, time for an axe, I think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed project which apparently at no time achieved any kind of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - data is also fairly inacessable on the archive machine and this appears to be a failed project that no longer warents an entry. Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sourcing. Minor internet entity (Alexa #16 million-something-something). Carrite (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer). Redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer); delete/redirect !votes agree article notability isn't assessed and this is a valid search term. Any content that could be merged to the Tom Harris article can be salvaged from the article's history. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Climate Science Coalition[edit]

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

The article was prodded, which I deprodded and added a few sources to, but sources are rather thin in availability and in their depth of coverage, and this topic may not ultimately meet WP:N. Per discussion occurring at the Rescue list, I've nominated this for deletion and hopeful further analysis here regarding available sources about the topic and their degree of coverage; the topic may not ultimately meet the threshold of notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are a few sources I found from cursory searches, per WP:BEFORE:

"Canada hopeful of new climate treaty". Fort Frances Times. December 12, 2011. Retrieved February 6, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"United Nation Climate change, Bali Skeptical Scientists Urge World To 'Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference". Canada Free Press. December 11, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2013.
"Global warming: the real danger is not taking action". Otago Daily Times. August 7, 2008. Retrieved February 6, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

More are possibly available by clicking-through in the find sources template above. I currently don't have time to find, research and assess additional sources, should they exist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete: non-notable. None of those 3 sources do more than note them in passing well down in the articles William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you searched for any additional sources regarding this topic? It seems like you're just analyzing the few that were presented here, rather than source availability and their depth of coverage should they be available, which is more significant in AfD discussions. See WP:NRVE for additional information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky to do so - they show up an awful lot in blogs, where they occupy a rather polarised position. And just about nowhere else. Which was my original point. I'll be happy to see someone else find decent refs to them William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The coalition has been worthy of notice by several books ([5], [6] devote at least one page each, and there are many more search hits) and some or other news source ([7]), and at least some mentions from (see scholar search, although I have not evaluated the context of those). Diego (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem I think. Using the English version, the first two I get are [8] (not about ICSC really, only a very tangenital mention in a whole book) and the second ([9]) isn't about ICSC either. Can you find anyone who actually says *anything* about them? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are you reading the sources? The Powell book summarizes a long list of statements from the ICSC and then states: Contrast the mission and principles of the ICSC with those of the AGU; [...] The AGU and its members seek answers; denier organizations like the ICSC know the answers and seek only confirmation that they are righ. One group of minds is open; the other closed. The book by Hoggan and Littlemore also quotes paragraphs from the ICSC website and has extensive commentary about Tom Harris, noting his views as executive director of the ICSC such as in March 2008 he popped up as the new executive director of the ICSC, which operates from the same IP address and with most of the same "experts" (...) as the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the Australian Climate Science Coalition and Although Harris doesn't tend to invoke the word "grassroots" quite so often at the ICSC he remains committed to the old tactics ... This is the kind of direct commentary of the topic that WP:GNG asks for. (Note that, as explicitly acknowledged by the guideline, the book doesn't need to be exclusively about the topic for it to count for notability). Diego (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Tom Harris. I see no notable mention of them in any references... from what i can glance it is a typical astroturfing pressure group with an impressive name, but very minimal influence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general problem since people can set up organizations which are essentially only them. Is there a general policy on this. If not, there should be. Eli Rabett (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be factual incorrect amd misleading, refer to 'Who We Are' on the ICSC site for more information ^[1] Beesaman (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the WP:ORG requirements of attracting notice, online newspapers, journal references etc... Need to be careful here that noted climate activists are not trying to throw their WP weight around instead of actually searching for supporting refs. The ICSC seems to have attracted their attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beesaman (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That Tom Harris and others involved with the ICSC are writing op-eds does not make for independent significant coverage in reliable sources...which is the requirement of WP:ORG. I'm perfectly willing to change my view, if you (or anyone else) can come up with such independent significant coverage. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notable point, is that their writings and views are being accepted for publication in national newspapers and that they are being commented upon in peer reviewed journals. Whether those references are in a positive or negative light is not the point, the fact that they happen, is. Removal of this article would cause dissonance and disconnection for those trying to triangulate a reference from journals or news articles. Also it is significant because the coverage is not merely Western centric but more global in nature as befits a global topic. This is without including the coverage on blogs where the coverage is even more notable. Beesaman (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything particularly notable in the fact that you can get an opinion printed in a newspaper. It is certainly not significant coverage - which is the requirement for notability. All we have is mention in passing, or (what amounts to) self-publishing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you here, it was not 'trivial' nor was it just 'mentioned' in passing. The article was not 'self-published' for example like many blog articles, it was published by an independent news source, again meeting WP requirements as the editors must have deemed it worthy of inclusion. It soumds odd that an article, published by a national news outlet in South Africa is somehow deemed not notable enough. Beesaman (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writing something yourself and then sending it to a newspaper who prints it as opinion, is basically self-publishing. There is no editorial oversight, and in Wikipedia context it is only usuable for the opinion of the person writing it. What media it is printed in, doesn't grant it any particular notability either - since it reflects the opinion of the person, not the media itself.Nb. not that it matters but BD only has a daily readership of <100,000 people - which is very little[10]

What is needed here is significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and that is what is missing here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: Beesaman has few contributions outside this debate William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)][reply]

[Note: ' some' might say Connolley has too many, or is this just bullying/intimidation of the 'new guy'?] Beesaman (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

' I have to disagree with you on this, the editor ultimately decides what is published not the opinion writer. A lot of journal and blog writers would deem it pretty 'significant' to have 100000 readers! Beesaman (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep As per Beesaman, the notability on this is high. I have added another recent news reference. Goldfringer (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: Goldfringer has precious few edits, outside this and the only-just-a-touch fringe Monatomic gold William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Using that argument would mean only the highest editing contributor should be listened to! Is this a popularity contest or a debate about an article's notability? Beesaman (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference, for balance one in opposition to the views of the ICSC and one seemingly referred to by KimDabelsteinPetersen earlier but not cited. Beesaman (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete (no redirect) Diego puts forth a reasonable defense for why the article subject is notable. However, his arguments are insufficient to overcome the thin sourcing available. Powell outlines the ICSC positions as an example, but does not discuss the ICSC itself. Hence I believe it falls short of the non-trivial mention requirement for sourcing. Powell is writing about the statement, not the organization. The best analogy I can think is that non-notable columnist A wouldn't become notable merely because notable columnist B wrote a column tearing apart the columnist A's writings. The reason I don't support a redirect is that I looked at the Tom Harris article, and I'm not convinced that article would survive a deletion debate..... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request for deletion should not centre upon just one item within the article nor its position in relation to other held views. There is more to the ICSC than that, it has coverage and notability, maybe too much for some of the commentators here? I have posted positive and negative references. My view that this article should be kept is not based upon a belief about its content but an understanding of its position and notability within a wider context. Beesaman (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FRINGE -- this is not extensively or significantly covered in reliable sources. Mere passing mentions, done out of journalistic scruples, does not make this group anywhere close to notable. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that climate debate is a 'fringe' issue is highly questionable! Beesaman (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Added yet another reference, this time from the EAP Journal^[2], in their own words, 'Welcome to the homepage of Economic Analysis and Policy (EAP), a refereed journal which has been in existence since 1970. We seek submissions from all areas of economics. In particular, we want to invite passionate, critical, and controversial articles.' http://www.eap-journal.com/. So that's Australiian, South African USA and Canadian coverage in refs. Beesaman (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you voted twice? [11] — ThePowerofX 21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, learning cycle, my error in typing, I had meant just to reinforce an earlier point, many thanks for highlighting it. Beesaman (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" (which almost certainly fails WP:RS, but that's not relevant) doesn't reference ICSC as far as I can tell, so I fail to see how it adds evidence for the notability of the article subject. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the reference, it not only cites ICSC but quotes some of its work. P189, and if a long standing referreed journal isn't acceptable as a source of notability then what is? I'm happy to further my understanding of the machinations of WP. Very interesting that citations are demanded, given, but reported as dismissed, seemingly without checking. Beesaman (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia's policy on notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Quoting again: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. Your new "source" only uses ICSC as a source for the text of the Manhattan declaration, which is also sourced elsewhere. It doesn't have any content about the ICSC. Ergo, not helpful in demonstrating notability.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced by the logic of your argument here. Is it a reliable source? Yes. Is the source ( in this case the journal) independent of the WP subject? Yes. Does it refer to the WP article in more than a rivial sense? Here I would say yes, but others (depending on their own bias) might disagree. As it directly refers to the ICSC (links to its website as well) and a conference declaration, then I would be inclined to accept it as more than trivial. My concern here is not for the rights and wrongs of the content but, as I've noted before, the dissonance deleting such WP articles has on cross referencing in this domain Beesaman (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference that places the ICSC within the same notability as other climate groups, to quote ' Canada is home to many high-profile scientists on all sides of the issue (Andrew Weaver, Tim Ball, Tim Patterson) as well as activist groups and think tanks (Climate Action Network, The David Suzuki Foundation, E ́quiterre, The Friends of Science, The Fraser Institute, The International Climate Science Coalition that maintain high public profiles on climate change issues.' Young, N and Dugas, E (2011) Representations of Climate Change in Canadian National Print Media: The Banalization of Global Warming, Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie Volume 48, Issue 1 Pages: 1–22. Beesaman (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Harris. There's enough out there for a couple substantial paragraphs, but (in my best judgement) not enough for notability of a standalone article. Garamond Lethe 06:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. J04n(talk page) 11:41, 14 February 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.

Hurrah - Wiki removed ICSC. Now can we get them to remove "Tom Harris"? I am very insignificant and not worthy of the great and powerful Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.3.55 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was speedy deleted per CSD G3 by User:NawlinWiki. (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent singh[edit]

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

This isn't even an article... it seems to be spam. Scientific Alan 2 ^{(Click here to talk)}^{(What have I done?)}^(Me) 13:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Haji Baba Sheikh. Redirected — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Babashykh[edit]

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

I can't figure out who this person is. I can't find the sources, and other edits by this article's creator are incomprehensible, see [12] and [13] for examples. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article appears to be about a Kurdish politician in Iran. Sources, if they exist, may not be in English or in the Latin alphabet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, but we don't even know if the name is spelled correctly. Given what is said about him I'd expect some English language sources. We might even have an article under the correct name! Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The text here is a bit hard to follow, but Haji Baba Sheikh sounds like it might be about the same person. That slight but readable stub has at least one source. If it's the same guy, delete and redirect might be the Obvious Right Thing here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why delete and redirect rather than simply redirect, which can be done by any editor without requiring an admin to use the deletion club? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 6 February 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalin Barboianu[edit]

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

Prod declined by creator of article. A quick search didn't find anything to suggest a pass of WP:PROF (h-index of 3 or so), nor of WP:AUTHOR (holdings of his books in Worldcat are not significant). Ray^Talk 13:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ray^Talk 13:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the category changed from Mathematicians to Technical writers, you should move this discussion in section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/AuthorsCedib (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: C.B. might not be an academic notability in terms of Wikipedia, but he surely is a notable author on gambling mathematics. Worldcat returns 10 of his titles in public libraries, many of them university libraries (among them, The Institute for the Study of Gambling, Nevada). I think the article should remain either in category Technical writers or Mathematicians. As counterexamples, see Mathew Hilger and King Yao, who have biographic pages and less exposure and credentials than CB.Cedib (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC) — Cedib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ray^Talk 12:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of convincing indicators of notability. I don't see Bărboianu meeting any specific WP:PROF criterion or a specific WP:AUTHOR one, regardless of a few books of his being in libraries.
About Matthew Hilger and King Yao, see WP:WAX. I agree, though, that both should be considered for deletion.
Also, is single-purpose account Cedib a slightly disguised variant of Cătălin Bărboianu? If so, he should inform us, per WP:COI. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Should I reply now by playing with the first and last letter of your username? I am sure we can find funny words. If this is your argument for deletion (because the other are not argued at all), Wikipedia should be proud of you.Cedib (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, except I have 100,000 edits across almost 7 years and many thousands of articles. You, on the other hand, have under two dozen edits in under two weeks, all of them, for some odd reason, related to Cătălin Bărboianu. It's not a shame to have a conflict of interest, but it should be declared if there is one. And no, my argument is that neither Bărboianu himself nor his works have garnered anywhere near the coverage in reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any reliably published third-party reviews of his books that would let him pass WP:AUTHOR. The citation record in Google scholar is far too small for WP:PROF#C1. And what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability-based strategy for a previous deletion discussion on the same subject that ended in a delete decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As his writings are technical/scientifical, what special reviews could you expect to find? In Authors Weekly or something? His books are on applied mathematics, not novels, the content is applied, not reviewed in top magazines. We talk here about a technical writer and not a novelist. Deleting the article with 27,000 Google returns and 7 university libraries with his books is insane. Cedib (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, 7 is a very low number for library holdings. Agricola44 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - As others have noted, Barboinanu could qualify for inclusion using criteria for academics or authors, but the criteria for neither of these guidelines are met. With repsect to his writings being technical and exempt from reviews, I would still expect to see some coverage about the utility of these books in coverage about poker. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We are not debating here about the content of his books. Criticizing content leads me to the idea that you have an interest in deleting the article rather than improving Wikipedia. Besides, looking over the biographic articles Whpq created, there are many of them eligible for deletion in terms of notability - see for example Meredith_Anne_Gardner Cedib (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I fail to see where the contents of his book are being debated. You asked the question "what special reviews could you expect to find?" and I answered. As for my motives, I request that you review WP:AGF and retract the accusation that I "have an interest in deleting the article rather than improving Wikipedia". -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Inquiring about the utility of his books in poker (?!) is at least strange, since the fields of his books are far wider, passing through all casino games and pure math. I said "leads me to the idea...", so it is a supposition, not an accusation, therefore there is nothing to retract.Cedib (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Supposition versus accusation is semantic hair-splitting. As for the books, no sources have been offered, no reviews have been offered. So regardless of content, or scope of the works, they don't provide any sort of indication or support for the inclusion of Barboianu in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply There are reviews in Casino City Times (By Howard Schwartz, well know gambling book reviewer), but I did not find relevant to put them in the article, the article is about CB and not the content of his books.Cedib (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of red flags, such as the misleading claim that the subject worked out the probabilities involved in the major games of chance – which should replace "worked out" with "re-derived", as these results have been long and well-established. Subject has no published papers in WoS, which would be extremely unusual for a notable mathematician. Subject has written lots of mass-market books, but institutional holdings barely register: Texas Hold-em book 4, the roullette book 3, draw-poker book 5, gambling probability 20, odds book 5, and Texas hold-em odds 6. I think these observations are rather conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment If you were familiar with the field of gambling probabilities, as you implicitly pretend, since you make such review on the literature of this specialty, you should know that probabilities cannot be "re-derived" (it is a senseless term in this context), but just computed in specific probability fields. You should also know that the first book on Hold'em probabiliities was Mike Petriv's "Hold'em Odds Book" in 1997, which presented probabilities of this game from player's point of view (for events related to player's own hand) in strategic context. Barboianu's book "Texas Hold'em Odds" from 2004 was the first book presenting also probabilities for opponents' hands, extending the range of the gaming events to measure to the full coverage (it was a full collection of odds), and his last book on Hold'em (2011) also presented the mathematical model of the strength of a poker hand in strategic context, being unique in this respect. Barboianu is the only mathematician who worked out the probability formulas for Draw Poker, and the results were presented in his book "Draw Poker Odds" from 2006. Can you point to other resource for these results with full coverage for this game (draw poker), since you pretend that "these results have been long and well-established"? If you cannot, then your argument is not only wrong, but intentionally misleading. The author published collections of probabilities with full coverage for the games in study. Even if such results were "well-established" (but they were not; the range of the gaming events attached to a game is huge, from thousands to tens of thousands), CB would still have the merit of putting them together in the books he wrote. I remind you that his books were merely written as guides for the players, and not for other mathematicians or academic audience, so there is no reason to see them published in academic environment. You still contest his notability as mathematician, while nobody sustained it, not even me. The CB article is in the category Gambling writers, so all your "arguments" fail. If you were to leave you comment simply as d-e-l-e-t-e, with no other "argumentation", that would have been more fair. Cedib (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The "gaming literature" is enormous and well-established and important works by many notable authors, e.g. Epstein or Thorp, are widely held by institutions, e.g. WorldCat shows Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic with ~1400 holdings. You make enormous claims, yet the standard resources that are typically used for assessment (WorldCat for books, WoS or GS for papers) very clearly do not bear these out. Indeed, there aren't even any sources in the article that even establish whether these claims are true! For example, if these claims were true, one would expect that these accomplishments would have been "noted", especially because this is a topic of enormous interest outside of academic mathematics. Again, such is evidently not the case. Continuing along this line places the burden of proof on you, not on others to disprove your claims. Agricola44 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    - Reply. Indeed, Epstein and Thorpe are the classics and their works were published in the 70's, respectively 80'. In the last decade, gambling mathematics developed and gained a large audience in the gambling communities, and CB is one (if not the most) notable contributor and author in this field. Per your argument, we should not list any other person in a category except the classics. If so, Wikipedia must state clear quantitative criteria to be met for inclusion, regarding the number of library holdings and the like.Cedib (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry my friend, you still haven't got it. WP aims to have work on all notable topics (operative word being "notable"), not just the classics. There are no precisely quantified laws, only guidelines that are backed by fairly well-established conventions. It seems we are all in fair agreement in identifying CB's body of work. The problem is that this work has not been sufficiently "noted", e.g. by being widely held, being widely cited, or being widely reviewed or acknowledged as being important in some sense – and this is especially so, given the fairly impressive claims that are being made by you (the primary author of this article). What makes the situation even more tenuous is that the article has lots of unsourced information with no supporting WP:RS – this is a major no-no for BLPs. My advice to you would be to stop debating the panel here and instead find and add documentation to support the claims in the article. Otherwise, it will likely be deleted. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 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) 00:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Su[edit]

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

delte fails WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it would seem most (if not all) of the sources are from sites like IMBD (not RS) and the subject's own website. I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources enough to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 12:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG (lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources) or WP:ENT/WP:CREATIVE at this time. Gong show 03:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable per our standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks notability.--Staberinde (talk) 20:28, 12 February 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) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Star Theatrics[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Page appears to have been made to promote a personal business (violation of WP:SOAP). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this page, and not the owner the production company, nor I am involved the operations of it. It is also not a business, but a non-profit organization. This is my first attempt at writing an article and the help said to write about something I know. I am primarily involved in community level theatre and musical groups. They are notable to those of us who frequent them. Also, Hamilton Theatre Inc. has there own page and is similar to Shooting Star Theatrics My next articles were to be on the Burlington Concert Band (the one in Ontario, not the one who already has a page) and the Dundas Valley Orchestra. Should I not bother? I would cite that grass-roots theatre groups are on par with minor league sports teams. Such as the Fort Erie Meteors. They draw 100-200 per game, [14] the same as the large venue performances of Shooting Star. Several newspaper articles have been written about the company in the Hamilton Spectator, but they predate the articles available on the website. Please comment, or make suggestions for improvement as I'd hate to lose my first page. User:Dannomyte

Here are some other articles from similar organizations. Georgetown Little Theatre McMaster Musical Theatre North Toronto Players Hamilton Theatre Inc. Sock 'n' Buskin Theatre Company Theatre Aurora Windsor Light Music Theatre User:Dannomyte

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to the nature of Wikiepdia being editable by anyone, the existence of other articles is generally not a strong argument for keeping this one. Each article needs to be taken on its own merits. In order to meet wikipedia's inclusiion guidelines, there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. also under consideration is the scope of the coverage. Shooting Star Theatrics certainly gets coverage, but all of it is in local papers. For example: SNAP Hamilton is a free community paper. Hamilton News is a community paper covering Hamilton and the recently merged towns. View Magazine is a local Hamilton arts magazine. I am not able to find coverage outside of these community papers, so it does not appear that the inclusion guidelines are satisifed. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the article creator and for my own curiosity, could you point out the WP policy that states that local/community papers are always considered unreliable? Locality is not mentioned in either of the WP:N or WP:RS policies you mentioned. In particular, WP:NEWSORG doesn't mention geographic extent. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your first question, See WP:GNG bullet point 3 which advises editors that the nature of the sources need to be considered when evaluating notability. There's a huge difference betweeen a major national daily like the Globe and Mail, and a monthly community paper like SNAP Hamilton. With respect to your second questions, refer to WP:ORG which notes that not for profit organisations normally would need to be national or larger is scope. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently researching offline sources to broaden the reference base of this article. There was coverage by the Hamilton Spectator, a newspaper with readership of a couple hundred thousand, around 2009, which predates their online archives. It will likely take me to about Sunday to have this.--24.141.197.192 (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have added Hamilton Spectator articles. --Dannomyte (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at the coverage that has been received - I have to conclude that this isn't reaching the level of significant independent coverage that would be needed - it would be quite normal for a dramatic group to have local/regional newspaper mentions of productions they are holding, unfortunately doesn't imply notability - I think more in-depth critical coverage of the contribution the group has made to the world of theatre or the community in some respect would be ideally what is required. It is not much consolation, but there are similar groups which are in the same position, see Runway Theatre Company for example. ---- _nonsense ferret 15:11, 6 February 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) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad Recordings[edit]

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

unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jim_Noir#Biography (it seems this is their only well known artist) - A Google News search with "My Dad Recordings record label Manchester" did not provide anything useful but a search with "My Dad Recordings Manchester" provided several results, mostly to Jim Noir, here (minor mention), here (apparently a press release but it mentions a couple of times) and here (reprint of previous link), here (another brief mention) and here (second from the top, page was slow to load and searching at the newspaper's website was also slow). Another search provided more results relevant to Jim Noir here, here and here. A search for Dear Eskimo, another artist, didn't provide anything relevant but a search for Jack Cooper found two news articles from 2004, here and here. The official website appears to have been abandoned as it is now a Chinese blog and it seems their MySpace page hasn't been updated for quite some time (I'm curious if the company is now defunct?). There isn't any evidence to suggest they have been active recently and, as mentioned, Jim Noir appeared to have been their only well known artist. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 20 January 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, Courcelles 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 6 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardog[edit]

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

Nonnotable dog 'breed' with no mentions in notable secondary sources. Google turns up nothing but scrapes of this page and references from the breed's own site. TKK ^{bark !} 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 18 January 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, Courcelles 01:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to come up a few times, mentioned on flickr in a photo, further searching could reveal more. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Flickr is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to have sufficient coverage independent of the promoters to pass GNG. --99of9 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 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) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Bircow[edit]

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

Utterly Wp:NN performer. A few g-hits but appears to be a solo performer at weddings and part of a group that was once broadcast to 300,000 people. Toddst1 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the GNG - massive press coverage in Denmark, little of it useful for building an encyclopedic biography (for example much coverage of his moving from one residence to another, such as this article where the headline is that he objects to the canine feces outside his new luxury flat in Copenhagen), but I've added a little information to the article and the coverage does demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should add that he is "tired of dog shit" to the Wikipedia article, because that appears to be what he's notable for. Toddst1 (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a glaring example of the tabloid coverage that doesn't add useful info. I must admit this was a relatively unedifying search. But most of it does mention his success as an entertainer to explain obsessing over things like his objection to poop on the sidewalk :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is this a joke nom? Part of what hat arguably been the most popular comedy group in Denmark in the last 30 years. Doing a tour with 300,000 spectators is comparable to a tour in the US with 18,000,000 spectators. Also done lots of other TV, movie and theater work. --Harthacnut (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article exists on the danish wikipedia. I just don't see enough notability to include him here unless someone could possibly point out some reliable sources. Stubbleboy 06:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A nomination of this kind requires checking non-English sources properly before AfD. Even without knowledge of Danish a search on Linie 3 would produce material like this. I have added a stub for Linie 3 including ref showing they got into English Billboard back in 1981 the year of their first LP. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Heussler[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the face of it, it seems that this individual would be notable. But I can't find the sources to support it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without prejudging notability, a merge to Mike and the Mad Dog, or one of his other regular gigs, would be a possibility. Can any sportsfans comment? --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:19, 17 January 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, Courcelles 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the "radio play-by-play voice of the WNBA's Connecticut Sun" appears to cross the notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 05:08, 12 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mana Shetty[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Dwaipayan (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --GDibyendu (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid only 'not notable' arguments Mkdw ^talk 20:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sunil Shetty Notability is not inherent because of her husband, however, it does appear that the media has been interested in their relationship which is why I recommend a redirect. Mkdw ^talk 09:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came here thinking it would be an obvious "delete" but there has been a lot of news coverage of Mana Shetty. To test her individual notability, I carried out a search excluding "Suniel" and "Sunil" and still came up with 57 hits for her that don't mention her husband. That's actually pretty good going for someone "notable for being a wife/girlfriend", so I think there's a case for deeper investigation. I'll hold off on a vote for now until I've had a look around the sources in more depth. At the very least this should be redirected, not deleted. Mabalu (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was hugely mistaken. After I saw Mabalu's comment I did some more searching and I found droves. She is definitely a celebrity wife, but a very prominent one -- to the point where she has gained her own notability via a lot of public attention. Independent and reliable sources where she is the direct subject of the publication: The Times of India (1), Times of India (2), Times of India (3), Times of India (4), DNA India, Mid-Day, The Hindu (1) and Sify. Other sources with direct mentions not relating to her husband: The Hindu (2), India Today, Economic Times, and the Times of India (5). There were plenty of more links to look through but I stopped after I found the Sify interview with the appropriately titled: I'm more than just a celeb wife: Mana Shetty. I can see how this was missed in WP:BEFORE, I didn't catch it myself, but when refining the search pattern it came up in spades. I would also like to note this was only what came out of Google News. Other checks reveal similar sources in other search categories. Cheers to Mabalu for the catch. Mkdw ^talk 10:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recurring refrain in these sources remains the owner of an NGO and fundraiser organizer (besides being Sunil Shetty's wife). The NGO itself may be notable (I don't know), but the owner? Not sure. Despite being mentioned in several news reports, and indeed interviewed in at least one, I am still unsure if she meets GNG, may be just borderline. The article "I'm more than just a celeb wife: Mana Shetty" begins like, "Suniel Shetty's wife Mana gets upset the moment you call her a celebrity wife. She makes it a point to say, "I have an identity of my own". And why not, she is a designer, runs an NGO and also organises a fundraiser exhibition." So, she has of course her own identity, but notability? Let's see what others opine. Redirect seems to be a better option.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree actually. Most of the sources don't mention the NGO. For example, Times of India (1), Times of India (3), and Times of India (4). The DNA India article interviews her directly and discusses her mother and their relationship and to a lesser extent about the NGO. The same with The Hindu (1) where it talks more about her fashion and her NGO is a trivial mention. Lastly, in regards to her Sify interview, it's about her. That along with the other interviews (not trivial mentions) are the basis to establish notability in which case I still maintain there are enough sources to do so. Mkdw ^talk 23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough. Harsh (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid only 'not notable' arguments Mkdw ^talk 20:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not widely cited by any major news agencies or publications, except a few, where she is mentioned to be Sunil Shetty's wife along with minimal mentions of her being a fashion designer. A little research would conclude that she's just a mediocre designer. Totally non-worthy of an independent page. Harsh (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mabalu and Mkdw's arguments are persuasive. And I'm someone who is very sceptical about both India and celebrity articles. Harsh states that "she's just a mediocre designer". I've no idea, and it's a very subjective thing to judge, but if her name sells product, for whatever reason, then she may well be a successful designer, which is probably what we should be trying to judge. Edwardx (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having considered the sources and arguments, I am voting keep. We are not here to decree whether or not someone is a good designer or not, but to judge whether or not they have received appropriate coverage that demonstrates their notability. The article needs editing and sourcing, as it is currently far from even being a good stub, but the subject has significant media coverage on her independent of her husband, plus coverage where her husband is mentioned as a side-note. Yes, she is Sunil Shetty's wife, but she also passes general notability due to this coverage and articles on her various ventures. Mabalu (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yeah, needs expanding, but the sources presented above are convincing enough for me. Questions as to the "quality" of her designs should be left to reliable sources, not our personal likes or dislikes. Stalwart111 12:47, 6 February 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) Ray^Talk 23:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berge Bulbulian[edit]

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

Survived WP:PROD but article still fails WP:SCHOLAR WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR Alfy32 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. The only refs are the subjects' book and an article that quotes the book, without commenting on the reliability of either the book or the author. Disclaimer: I was original PROD'er. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Not sure~~ (edit !vote per further commentary) - a normal Google searched turned up not much at all. But a GoogleBooks search of the subject's name in quotation marks brings up pages and pages of results. There are a number of citations of his book and a number of passing mentions of him. The rest are covers-only entries so there's no way of knowing. But I have concerns about calling anyone with that many ghits non-notable without more investigation/consideration. Stalwart111 13:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is an often cited authority in his field, and seems to pass the requirments for articles on academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got examples of those citations? That was my impression, too, but I just couldn't verify as much. Stalwart111 02:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His study on Fresno-Armenians is the foremost study on the community. His book is cited by many other academicians. Just typing Berge Bulbulian in Google books yields dozens if not hundreds of results. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for notability in US Armenian community history (can nom name a more notable historian of California's Armenian community?) ...that's without counting the WP CALIFORNIA side of notability, per dozens of refs in Congress hearing committees as president of a grassroots land group of 1000 members during the 1970s. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Electric[edit]

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

unref blp; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear to be a BLP, but the article for a Danish Band. However, there are also no references and little evidence of notability, so it still merits a delete. Now, find me sources and I'd be happy to keep - I see a quote from someone in the band in an article from Dec 2012 (in Danish) here, so perhaps there's more to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's some evidence of notability with reviews in AllMusic, JazzTimes, and All About Jazz (which seems largely to use professional journalists based on the writer bios). "Ibrahim Electric Meets Ray Anderson" is most notable.[15][16][17] Other album reviews.[18][19][20] I'm not sure about the reliability of these.[21][22][23] And other less WP:RS sources (some Danish government).[24][25] Most of the Danish-language coverage seems to be ticket sales or listings, though some may still have useful info[26]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:21, 17 January 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, Courcelles 02:27, 23 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thai nationality law. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fongchan Suksaneh[edit]

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

WP:N; not notable Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be a case of a person being notable for only one event. Looking briefly at Google results, the issue of her nationality has been cited as examples in several discussions of Thailand's nationality laws. The subject is already mentioned in Thai nationality law. If the subject is deemed non-notable then relevant info could be merged there. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thai nationality law. Upon further consideration, I don't think the subject is notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd be acceptable, of course. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (reducing to not much more than just the single sentence of coverage that's already in Thai nationality law). Nothing notable at all about this person as such, beyond being incidentally the first person a new law was applied to. I'm going ahead and redirecting it now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 8 February 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) 00:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azarenka–S. Williams rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've had deletions already for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Azarenka didn't reach the top until fairly recently, and a head-to-head record of 1-11 isn't a rivalry, it's a domination. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They've met in one Grand Slam final. Way off from being notable. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a particularly notable rivalry that is frequently discussed as such in reliable media. Does not meet the 'significant media coverage ' requirement, see WP:TENNIS Article Guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 February 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) 00:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–S. Williams rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've had deletions already for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too little history for this to merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs evidence that this rivalry has helped shape the game, or defined an era of tennis. Article only mentions that they've played against each other, which is not notable. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a particularly notable rivalry that is frequently discussed as such in reliable media. Does not meet the 'significant media coverage ' requirement, see WP:TENNIS Article Guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Žarko Rakočević[edit]

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

per WP:NBASKETBALL Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Actually does meet WP:NBASKETBALL as he played Euroleague games in 2008-09 with Partizan per this. Rikster2 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Withdraw Nomination - I withdraw my nomination as the player actually does meet WP:NBASKETBALL criteria. Sorry --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 05:25, 11 February 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Dream and Day Collide[edit]

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

Created page with incorrect Title spelling (fixed); please delete this one Nihil7 (talk) 08:41, 6 February 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balbis[edit]

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

Deprodded since some sources supported it as a structure in Greek racing. However, only one source supports it in the geometric sense. I can find no other sources supporting this as a defined shape, and I see no way to make it more than a dicdef even if it were about the Greek racing structure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. It seems quite clear that a balbis is a structure in Greek racing and that there is a signficiant literature on the subject. The sources I found in a couple of minutes on Google Books are here: Miller (2004) [27] mentions it on 25 pages, Valavanēs (1999) [28] on 82 pages, Miller et al (2001) [29] on 35 pages. It is clear that there is ample material here alone to write an article and Google Books for "balbis hysplex" yields over 200 likely sources. The application to the geometrical H-shape is apparently found only in the book by Francis (1971) and so should not be the principal focus of the article. However all of this can be fixed by normal editing. Deltahedron (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using AFD as cleanup at all. I'm saying that I don't think even rewriting it to be about the Greek thingy would be useful, as even doing so wouldn't make it any more than a WP:DICDEF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to suggest that it is impossible to write anything beyond a dictionary definition of an object about which so much has been written in the academic literature. Deltahedron (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of Deltahedron. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, sources show notability. Diego (talk) 15:33, 12 February 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) 00:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YRC Weblink Browser[edit]

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

I previously put a WP:PROD notice on this with the rationale "No evidence that this new software meets the notability criteria." The Prod was removed by an IP. The article text indicates that the official release is likely to be in May this year and the nearest to a WP:RS reference is a review on "I Love Free Software", so at best this is WP:TOOSOON for an article of demonstrated notability. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE. NN. No RS. Serious COI. Self-promotion. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:N for a Wikipedia article. Several searches have not provided any coverage in reliable, third-party sources about this software. Sources in the article are from a blog, a software forum/directory and from YRC Group, Inc., the software's developer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above, no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by a now-blocked SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:56, 11 February 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. I am concerned about the discussed neutrality issues and the general tendency of the discussions surrounding these works, but I am closing, not supervoting, and I see consensus to keep. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2)[edit]

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

This is another set of self-published books by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. While there are a several peer-reviewed papers that cite this work, I have not found any reviews or scholarly work that discusses these books and would thus establish notability. I've also been searching the stacks at UC Berkeley, also to no avail. The best independent source on Sarkar's thought, Inayatullah's "Understanding Sarkar" does not list these volumes in its bibliography. I don't believe it will be possible to establish notability for this article moving forward and thus I recommend deletion. Garamond Lethe 06:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; lacking independent sources, it's impossible to write a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would point out that this series of books is not at all self-published, as the nominator claims. Indeed, given the fact that the author died in 1990 and the first edition of Volume 1 came out in 1993 (Volume 2 in 1994), it would require a deployment of immense supernatural power for this two-volume series to have been self-published. Such a supernatural power would, I submit, accrue notability for these books without any further investigation. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on nomination: The nominator references Inayatullah and comments that this series of books is not referenced in one of Inayatullah's books. However, "Discourses on Tantra" is referenced in at least one other Inayatullah book, namely, "Neohumanist Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect" (go to page 94 here). --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's comment: I am forced to repeat here what I said in innumerable AfD proposed by the same group of censors. This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I wrote on WP. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose all that we don't like/agree for deletion? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it. As a relatively recent editor I ask me: is it more useful to see in WP some experienced editors (strengthened by their advanced procedural knowledge and by a discrete logistical support of a few others) engaged almost exclusively in the easy work of articles' deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of their creation and improvement? I hope you all will understand me if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation:* See here. This serious academic article, appearing in the journal "Philosophy East & West" Volume 61 Number 2 April 2011 303-323, published by the University of Hawaii Press, references Discourses on Tantra Volume 2. There is a much larger document by Kang - his PhD thesis - that I will try to secure a copy of by writing to him. In all likelihood, this 413-page PhD thesis will have many more references to "Discourses on Tantra". I quote the last paragraph of the abstract on the University of Queensland website: "This phenomenological and comparative study of Sarkar's texts reveals Sarkar's AM ideology as a deep and comprehensive system of philosophy-praxis containing elements from a wide variety of sources rooted in the Indian tradition. The study also reveals major areas of agreement as well as disagreement between Sarkar's AM and traditional discourses of Indian spirituality. More importantly, it supports the assertion that Sarkar, while overtly non-aligned with any specific or recognised disciplic lineage (sampradaya) of Hindu or Buddhist origin, is nevertheless an authentic interpreter, teacher, and guru of Indian Tantra for the contemporary audience." --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References (still) don't count towards notability. Garamond Lethe 14:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's note: I put back in the article the deleted academic sources (and footnotes) unfairly deleted by the usual suspects :). Please don't remove again without discussion and wait untill the AfD's end. Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge No indication of wp:notability.....zero secondary or independent sources. Note: this block of articles centering on this person been very difficult to Wikify. Appears to be due to a group of zealous followers aggressively preventing such. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I propose that the subject meets criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT. My argument is that the historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable. J04n(talk page) 11:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, J04n. Thanks for closing Prabhat Samgiita. We could certainly stand to have a competent argument for Sarkar's literary notability. Based on the information I have there's been only one Ph.D. dissertation on Sarkar and none of his books are cited more than a couple dozen times in the peer-reviewed literature. Given that record I don't see how you're reaching "the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study". Garamond Lethe 12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, I echo Garamond's thanks to you for closing the Prabhat Samgiita AfD... perhaps with a bit more sincerity. And I totally agree with your grounds for notability in this instance. Normally, I would not strongly contest an AfD nomination on a book series that is essentially a compilation of articles published in other places, but in the various compilation series (like Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2)) there are many articles that are not published in English in any other place. Frankly, I totally agree that all of Sarkar's works meet Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, but - due to limited time for AfD debates - my preference has been to concentrate my energy supporting the original works of Sarkar and especially some of his most important works, like Caryacarya (the social code of Ananda Marga and therefore comparable to Halakha or Sharia but which - to my amazement - got deleted), A Guide to Human Conduct (the ethical code of Ananda Marga, which is now undergoing its second nomination for deletion barely one month after the first failed nomination), and The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism (the landmark book for Sarkar's philosophy of Neohumanism and one of the cornerstones of Sarkar's system of Neohumanist Education, also now undergoing an AfD debate). I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology (Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an easy case to make if it's true. Course listings and syllabi are online. I have no difficulty finding syllabi for classes reading Tagore, Rushdie, Naipul, etc., etc. Outside the walled garden of Ananda Marga I can't find a single university course that has Sarkar on the reading list. Can you? And if you only find one (or two, or three), how are you going to make the leap from that to Sarkar being a "common subject"? Garamond Lethe 17:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond, pardon me, but I am not going to engage in another lengthy debate with you. But I will point out that you are not reading Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT the same way as I do. That criterion does not state that the "author's life and body of written work" must be or even is currently "a common subject of academic study". It merely states that it "would be a common subject of academic study". I contend that this is indeed the case with Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. As demonstrated at three other AfD nominations that you filed - Prabhat Samgiita AfD, A Guide to Human Conduct 2nd AfD, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism AfD - this is already taking place. Furthermore, there are numerous research institutes around the world - in the USA, in Australia, in Venezuela, and so on - dedicated to Sarkar's Progressive Utilization Theory. Research on Sarkar's theory of microvita is also going on in various parts of the world - for example, in India and in Germany. And, I understand (but do not have any link on this) that Sarkar's books on philology have been incorporated into at least one Bangladesh university's curriculum. Someone from Bangladesh wrote me just today, so I may inquire from him about that. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)amended microvita research links --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) added links for some PROUT research institutes --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Trough these two books, the author has examined and has reinterpreted Tantra, an important part of spirituality. I have knowledge that some independent sources expressing that as well. However, I don't have the time to pursue and research about that. The consequent deletion requests, so many in number, was done in this way (tandem) to prevent those interested to make research and substantially oppose the deletion. Anyway, apart from that the number 5 of the notability books, mentioned above is enough for strongly keeping this article. The article, as in the case of Prabhata Samgiita, is expandable. As-so-far I do not see any logical reason to delete this article. --Universal Life (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep: an article of an important book in Two volumes. We can try to develope it.--Anta An (talk) 12:11, 15 February 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) 15:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Casa[edit]

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

I'm listing this AfD because I highly doubt that this restaraunt has any coverage in reliable sources and I also think that its notability is quite questionable. The only source that the article contains is to the the restaraunt itself. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 04:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found for this, just random mentions of various other unrelated Taco Casas here and there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found these sources which I think bring the subject up to notability guidelines: Former Taco Casa manager accused of stealing $11k, ~~South of the Border on Paxton (Timeout)~~, Police: Man threatened Taco Casa employees, and ~~Restaurant cleared in hot cheese lawsuit~~. There were many other, which is not surprising considering this is a 40 year old chain. - Mr X 05:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second and fourth ones are about a completely different Taco Casa. Their website lists locations only in Texas. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated the list of sources. I guess this Taco Casa is mostly known for crimes. I left out the article about a drug deal at one of the locations (not even joking). - Mr X 05:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just not notable enough. It's a very generic name, there is little coverage on Taco Casa in general, and there seems to be more on the Tuscaloosa chain than on the Texas chain. Also, I removed the "Mexico-related discussion" listing: there's nothing Mexican about this. Drmies (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I live in Texas and I believe I've seen these around and there wouldn't be much news coverage for a small and local taco place. Google News found one recent article here (minor mention) and Google News archives found nothing substantial and mostly articles for particular locations and minor mentions from customers or employees. I found this Fort Worth Star-Telegram article which mentions the company is based in Gainesville but I can't see much else in the small preview. As you continue farther in the next pages, the number of relevant results start to decrease but I found this NY Times article which actually mentions them but it's brief. I recently improved an article for a Pennsylvania-based restaurant chain Hoss's Steak and Sea House and that had received more significant news coverage than this. Not only is "Taco Casa" a simple name, it's generic enough for any business to be called that as we learned from the Tuscaloosa-based Taco Casa above. Additionally, Hispanic-owned businesses may also receive less attention than others but this isn't always the case. The two articles about crimes, of course, aren't sufficient for an article and a News search to support the 1972 establishment found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 7 February 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. Der yck C. 17:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buckfire and Buckfire P.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable Law Firm. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This user nominated the page for speedy deletion, which was not approved with the explanation, "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance." This second attempt to delete the page has no significant explanation as to why they decided to delete the page. I argue for the page to be kept based on the following:

This page includes references from significant sources, including CNN, Detroit News, a book published by Oxford University Press, Detroit Free Press, and The Oakland Press--five very reputable sources, showing that the firm and its lawyers have been cited in the news on multiple occasions. The firm is featured in some of the references in great detail, no not all. The Detroit News and Detroit Legal News articles focus solely on the firm, and other articles focus solely on cases run by the law firm. 14 of the 17 references are to third-party references, with the only non third-party references used to establish basic facts, such as the names of lawyers mentioned in newspaper articles. Many of these sources pass the "depth of coverage" requirement, and the independence of the sources do show that "people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it" on several occassions. I'm not claiming that this is White and Case here, but the number of references available do give this law firm a place on Wikipedia in the form of a law firm stub. The article is written in neutral, encyclopeadic style, and there are several items of note to mention on the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling though this is just one of a few million law firms in the country (or the world) that handles accidents and personal injury claims. If there was something special about this firm then I would consider otherwise. The simple act of the firm existing itself is not enough to warrant inclusion. Finally, the comment about credible assertion is in reference to speedy deletion standards, which is stricter than AfD. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have full right to your opinion, but I believe that the firm passes notability on Wikipedia, and do not believe that this amount of references or quality of references are available for "a few million law firms" :) I spent a lot of time and care to consider whether or not there were enough references here to create a new page, so do politely disagree with your assessment. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know that I'd go as far as "one of a few million" law firms, but I certainly agree with Mateinsixtynine that there's nothing in this article, or in any of the coverage, to show that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill law firm. cmadler (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the fact it has made news for its distribution of special accident victim materials is different, given notability by the sources that have covered the act. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to say that, but I certainly don't agree. The only source used that even begins to address notability is the LegalNews.com article about the mobile app, and that by itself, I find entirely inadequate. cmadler (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the policy Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Commercial and do not see how the actual criterium described in this policy applies to the law firm in question. None of the sources I've used simply mention the firm about town in the midst of normal business. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources used don't mention the law firm at all, and several of those that do are sourced via PRWeb. cmadler (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a claim of notability of the firm. The accomplishments it has are not worthy enough to be considered as a powerful proof of how it may be notable, and for me, they look a bit trivial. Apart from that, I can clearly see how this article is written a bit like an advertisement, using a non-encyclopedic writing fashion (titles like Practice and Lawyers don't sound encyclopedic at all) that would have to be properly reworked to only include material with encyclopedic value, if any. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:19, 31 January 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, Jujutacular (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The firm does not seem to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, based on the article's sources that are of inadequate quality. I thought I had found a good source here, until I discovered that it was another PR spawned article. Individual lawyers from the firm have had minor media mentions, but the company does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. - Mr X 04:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with most of the assessments thus far. Not seeing a depth of sources to adequately verify notability. Stalwart111 13:16, 6 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alliv Samson[edit]

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

She certainly exists, but I can't find sufficient independent RS coverage to conclude that she is notable. Tagged for notability for over a year. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Mr X 05:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I'm not finding coverage in reliable sources for this person, either. She does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE at this time. Gong show 05:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC to qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article. Several customized source searches in GNews and GBooks are not providing any coverage in third-party reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in the media here to meet WP:BASIC, not yet notable. NealeFamily (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 10:22, 8 February 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pumpkin[edit]

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

Notability. The only cited reference is a copy of the book, and several searches of different Google search engines produced no results except the book or places to purchase it. It has not won any major book awards, and was not a bestseller. LM103 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found some reviews offhand, but I've also so far found a lot of childhood educational tools that suggest that it's habitually used in classrooms or the like. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. I'm still looking, but this is what I found just offhand.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews could be considered light, but I've found a ton of educational themed books and pages from various sources that show that it's being used in schools, libraries, or similar. ([41], [42], [43], [44]) Two schools even put on their own version of a play based on the book. All in all, this book manages to just satisfy the requirements of WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's widely-reviewed for a children's book, though not by the standards of many adult genres. However, there's enough material to add a section to the article on educational use of the book, and I think it's clear that overall there are enough sources to allow a reasonable article to be written. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:29, 6 February 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. Notability demonstrated by reliable sources. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WS FTP[edit]

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists) Rationale given in PROD was: Non-notable software, no references to support the "one of the oldest" claim. Only referenced is self-published by the author. Illia Connell (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is an early FTP client, also known as Winsock FTP. I suspect that good sources could be found in computer magazines from the mid-to-late 1990s. Here is one source that discusses the subject [45] and here is another [46]. - Mr X 04:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added Network World and CNet reviews and two books as independent sources that go into some depth (1-3 pages) about the program. CNet, Network World, and Psychology Press are reliable publishers; I am not sure about the other book. There are probably plenty more treeware sources that I am unaware of. The multiple reliable sources suggest that the program is notable and that the article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks to Mark Viking for adding sources demosntrating notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources are described above. Dialectric (talk) 19:11, 8 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MoreViews[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated by reddogsix. I was unable to find any independent sources. Notably, their Web of Trust rating is very poor. - Mr X 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it contains phishing or scamming and mainly many ethical issues based on WOT comments. Eye snore (pending changes) 03:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A social media marketing company that helps improve a company's online presence primarily through the use of social networks advertising on Wikipedia, and where have we heard that before? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOWBALL--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:47, 8 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter P. Gudo[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Sketchy references in the article and lack of references point to failed WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to have been any discussion yet, but the AfD template has been removed by the article's creator. I've reverted the edit - if the template was supposed to have been removed then I apolgise. CarrieVS (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No results on google I could see, referenced sources also do not turn up on google. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was not able to find any reliable sources. The only sources that I did find were social networking sites. - Mr X 03:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was also unable to find reliable sources that corroborate notability. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2012 Burgas bus bombing. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2012 Burgas bus bombing[edit]

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

I'm horrified by this article, not because of any views that might be expressed over the bus bombing, but the fact that some 90% of this article is a quotefarm of soundbites, indignant comments, empty rhetoric and "mee toos" from overly self-important politicians from countries without any connection at all to the incident. The summary section of the main bus bombing article could be expanded a little, with content of the 'Bulgaria' section of this, and then this could be deleted without loss of meaningful content. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize, merge, and redirect to 2012 Burgas bus bombing. Is it worth noting in the main article that multiple politicians, heads of state, and similar have expressed condolences? Yes. But do we need a list of every single person's condolence or reaction to the bombing? No. This is the sort of thing that can be summed up with an all encompassing sentence. The lead sentence in the article actually sums it up adequately without need to detail each person: "The international reactions to the 2012 Burgas bus bombing, which killed 5 Israeli tourists and the bus driver in Burgas, Bulgaria, included condemnations and condolences by multiple national governments and supranational organizations." If and I state if one or two of the people make comments that become an even bigger kerfuffle, then those individual statements can be briefly mentioned in the parent article. Other than that, there is literally no need to post each reaction. It's pretty much par for the course that people will respond in a certain manner to bombings or anything that harms or kills people in this manner. This is not an encyclopedic entry and is largely unnecessary.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tokyogirl79 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 Burgas bus bombing, all terrorist attacks result worldwide condemning messages which all look more or less same.--Staberinde (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 Burgas bus bombing. No need for a separate article....William 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINHERITED. The event itself may have been notable but that does not necessarily apply to reactions. 2012 Burgas bus bombing#Reactions could do with expanding as suggested but most of the included quotes are unnecessary. Funny ^Pika! 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just stumbled upon this article after reading http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4506592.html and checking some things here on wikipedia. IDK if u should delete it or keep it. 72.34.80.28 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 12:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat Samgiita[edit]

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

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

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

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

The best citation I'm able to find is the one included in the article: a footnote in a historical work on genocide attesting to the existence of this collection. What other little commentary exists is not independent, and based on this I don't see any way to establish notability. The above can fit comfortably within the Sarkar biographical article.

As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. Garamond Lethe 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar as nom.

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/redirection - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect; still short of notability. It's impossible to develop neutral non-fringey content without sufficient coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's very hard not to comment on other users here. I mean, Garamond Lethe and Bob Rayner... where have I seen those names before? But to avoid any kind of personal attack - though some might consider this very AfD to be a type of personal attack - let me keep my remarks somewhat lighthearted. Garamond and Bob do not see anything notable about a body of 5,018 songs, composed - or at least released - over a span of only eight (8) years. I mean... come on, anyone can put arbitrary notes to arbitrary words and call it a song, and anyone can post just about anything on YouTube nowadays, is it not? So I'm sure that Garamond and Bob know or know of many artists who have accomplished the same or much greater thing as Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. And, far be it from any editor on Wikipedia to even listen to a single one of Sarkar's 5,018 songs before commenting disparagingly. After all, listening to a song might amount to original research, and anyway the song itself comes from a primary source. But let's consider Garamond's nomination. He says that he cannot find any evidence of notability - almost no independent commentary. And, being a diligent researcher presenting his findings in good faith, no doubt he made a search of all the various newspapers and magazines in India before commenting like that. No doubt he also searched for references to this body of music with all of the possible spellings and in all of the possible Indian languages, perhaps most notably Bengali and Hindi. And I won't even speculate on how he could have found the time for so much research, given that he was busy making so many other simultaneous AfD nominations on articles related to Sarkar's works. But it does seem a bit unfortunate that Garamond may have missed the fact that all around India to this very day there are frequent public performances of Prabhat Samgiita (what Garamond describes in his AfD nomination as an "artifact" rather than art). Some of those frequent performances are associated with dramas or even a Bollywood movie. And it seems that many of those public performances are sufficiently noteworthy to get reported in Indian newspapers. For example: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If I had the time, I could probably put up another 100 links to English newspapers in India. Just imagine what I could do with a search in Bengali or Hindi! Then there are references - and, to some extent, reviews - on pages like here. But then none of the above are actually "peer reviews". Mea culpa. Could someone please remind me... what other late 20th or early 21st Century artist released more than 5,000 songs over a span of eight years? Unfortunately, Rabindranath Tagore, who I understand composed (only) somewhere around 2,200 songs (over a much longer span of time) died in 1941, forty years before Sarkar released the first of his songs. But maybe there's someone else? Maybe Garamond Lethe or Bob Rayner could step up with their own 5,000 songs to write a peer review. Oh, wait, it seems that they don't consider that to be a notable event, worthy of even so much as a separate article on Wikipedia, much less a peer review. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any links that discuss the book? Garamond Lethe 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, Garamond! You nominated this article for deletion, and you still don't know that Prabhat Samgiita is not a book but rather a collection of 5,018 songs? Did you even read the short article created by Cornelius383 before nominating it for deletion? Have you tried to understand anything said by anyone other than your chums at Fringe/n? --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<grin> It's a book. Garamond Lethe 17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm curious. Let's take a look at your links.

1. New Stateman. Performance competitions organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 7 Oct 2011.

2. The Hindu. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 15 Sep 2009

3. The Hindu. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 19 Jun 2009.

4. The Hindu. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 21 Mar 2008.

5. The Telegraph. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 27 Oct 2009.

6. The Telegraph. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 25 Oct 2005.

7. The Telegraph. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 27 Oct 2011.

8. The Telegraph. ~~No mention of Prabhat Samgiita.~~ Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 26 Oct 2011. Duplicate of #7.

9. The Telegraph. ~~No mention of Prabhat Samgiita.~~ Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 24 Oct 2011. Duplicate of #7.

10. The Telegraph. ~~No mention of Prabhat Samgiita.~~ Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 25 Oct 2005. Duplicate of #6.

11. The Telegraph. ~~No mention of Prabhat Samgiita.~~ Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 26 Oct 2007.

12. Hindustan Times. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 07 Dec 2012.

13. Afternoon Despatch and Courier. Notice of performance organized by Ananda Marga. Likely press release. 07 Jun 2011.

14. mmusicz.com: audio, video, lyrics search Not a reliable source.

You've established beyond shadow of any possible doubt that Sarkar's group Ananda Marga likes to get together for a singsong from time to time and the local newspaper is kind enough to print their press release. This is far and away the strongest argument for notability put forward for any of Sarkar's works, but press releases don't establish notability. Garamond Lethe 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond, leaving aside your snide remark about "singsongs", if you had read carefully what I stated along with my Keep vote, you would have grasped the fact that a meaningful search must include "all possible spellings". And had you considered that point, then you would have seen that items 8-12 do indeed mention Prabhat Samgiita. Apparently, The Telegraph's preferred spelling for "Samgiita" is "Sangeet". Quite frankly, Garamond, item 10 is so short that I find it a bit hard to believe that you managed to miss this point. But, as you did not dismiss items 8-12 as mere "press releases" or "likely press releases", perhaps you should now do the honorable thing and withdraw this rather outrageous nomination for deletion. You might also like to listen to one or two of the songs that you have dismissed as part of an "artifact" unworthy of an article in Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on the spelling – I've corrected the links above. Garamond Lethe 17:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please pardon me for saying this, Garamond, but it is getting very difficult for me to maintain an assumption that you are speaking/acting in good faith. You have dismissed every article that I quickly listed as a "likely press release", something which neither you nor I would know. I mentioned that I could probably post another 100 links to English newspaper articles from India and many, many more on top of that if I were to include articles in other Indian languages like Hindi and Bengali. But what's the point of doing it when you could also locate those articles just as easily as I? And what's the point of doing it when you would almost certainly dismiss any additional article as a "likely press release" also. So let's just stick with the first 12 that I gave. Even if all of these 12 were press releases (though I doubt that it is so), it is still worth noting that all of these articles appeared in well established and prestigious newspapers, not tabloids. And, even if all of these 12 were press releases (though I doubt that it is so), it does seem impressive to me that a competition would attract so many performers in 54 districts of four states that there would be 700 finalists who came to Kolkata for the conclusion of the competition. And, even if all of these 12 were press releases (though I doubt that it is so), the articles seem to indicate that a good number of renowned artists in India appreciate Prabhat Samgiita. As I see it, these articles establish notability. But, hey, here on Wikipedia we can have a separate article for a single song by just about any Western band. Search for Wikipedia articles containing the words, "I wanna", and we get a remarkable 10,120 hits! But Cornelius created a single article about a set of 5,018 songs from a Bengali source, and our Garamond says: "I'm sorry, but that is not notable. It's not art - it's just an artifact of a political or religious movement." Well, I can hardly believe that we are still arguing about this matter. Clearly, the notion of "notability" on Wikipedia needs a major reworking when just about any degrading song that earns money and comes from the West is considered to be notable, but the entire collection of 5,018 inspiring songs from a single Indian composer is considered to be not notable. I am sorry to say it, but this AfD nomination simply reeks of bigotry. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Arguments are essentially the same as for Idea and Ideology: Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources means this fails WP:NBOOK (i.e. HathiTrust lists it as a book) and WP:NMUSIC (which pertains to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs). I also have heavy concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX given the context of many similarly-created articles. Location (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, another Garamond compadre other than Bob has turned up here to vote... in a bizarre and partisan fashion. How does WP:NBOOK apply to a collection of songs? Even WP:NMUSIC hardly covers this point, as the Songs section is clearly about individual songs and singles. And then there is the statement at the top of WP:NMUSIC: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." So I stand by my remark above: "Clearly, the notion of 'notability' on Wikipedia needs a major reworking when just about any degrading song that earns money and comes from the West is considered to be notable, but the entire collection of 5,018 inspiring songs from a single Indian composer is considered to be not notable." --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. It could be that a collection of over 5000 songs by Sarkar doesn't find significant coverage in reliable independent sources because of systemic bias ("availability of sources is not uniform"). Even if that is the case here, one has to wonder why none of the Indian news agencies or publication houses, even those from Kolkata, mention this collection in detail. Sarkar is not the only Indian spiritual writer whose discography doesn't meet WP's notability guideline. Kripalu Maharaj's Prem Ras Madira, a collection of 1008 songs on Radha and Krishna, doesn't have an individual article. Tagore's songs have an article but only because he is a Nobel laureate. Anuradha Paudwal's 5000+ religious songs in many Indian languages have a dedicated article, but it too looks on shaky grounds with regards to notability. Maybe Indian media is elitist and secular or the sheer volume of religious songs makes individual collections non–notable. Whatever be the reason for the insufficient coverage it makes little difference to the fact that without significant coverage in reliable independent sources writing an article of reasonable length will require original research, which of course is against policy. Therefore, it makes sense to redirect this article to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar#Music where this collection is already mentioned. If multiple sources do turn up later the article can always be recreated from them. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to closing admin and comment: Here we see yet another one of Garamond's associates lending partisan support. I would request the closing admin to take note of the fact that Garamond Lethe, Bob Rayner, Location, and CorrectKnowledge have a considerable history of voting as an oppositional bloc in relation to all things connected with what some of them call the "Sarkarverse". Nevertheless, CorrectKnowledge raises two interesting examples, even if his presentation of those examples is highly misleading. For example, CorrectKnowledge implies that Kripalu Maharaj's 1,008 songs is comparable to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's 5,018 songs. But do the numbers really reflect that? 1008 songs is less than 1/2 of the number of songs by Rabindranath Tagore (who does have a dedicated article for his collection of songs) and only 1/5 of the number by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (who has a dedicated article that has here been nominated for deletion, with partisan support by CorrectKnowledge). But, frankly, I don't see why Wikipedians should object to a dedicated article about a collection of 1008 songs by a single composer. So I am left wondering as to whether anyone ever created an article specifically for Kripalu's music. Did that ever happen? And did that putative article go through an AfD process (with or without support for deletion or redirect given by CorrectKnowledge)? I doubt it. And, if not, how is CorrectKnowlege's example very relevant here? (As an aside, I would also point out that the language in the Kripalu Maharaj article that CorrectKnowledge cites is not at all neutral. "Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj"... I can only wonder that no one at Fringe/n has yet come along to make deletions. It seems that Kripalu (born Ram Kripalu Tripathi) is totally flying under the radar on Wikipedia as he merits not just a "Shree" but also a "ji", a "Jagadguru", and a "Maharaj". ) Regarding CorrectKnowledge's second example, Anuradha Paudwal, the Wikipedia article on her does not state that she has composed even a single song. So CorrectKnowledge's reference to "Anuradha Paudwal's 5000+ religious songs in many Indian languages" is apparently just misdirection. What we have on Wikipedia is merely a "list of songs recorded (not composed) by Anuradha Paudwal". Furthermore, the list is not of 5000+ songs, as CorrectKnowledge (what a misnomer!) wrongly asserted. It is merely a list of a bit more than 1500 songs recorded over a period of 40 years. If we compare that to the 2,230 songs composed by Rabindranath Tagore over the course of his lifetime and the 5,018 songs composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and released over a period of just 8 years, then Anuradha Paudwal's achievement dwindles in significance. Quite possibly, not even one of the 1500 songs that she recorded was composed by her (although that does seem a bit unlikely). Nevertheless, if we were just taking here about songs that have been recorded by a musical performer, which we certainly are not, then I would expect that many popular musical performers in India have accumulated a similar number of songs in their repertoire over the course of a lifetime. For example, Ravi Shankar also has an impressive discography, and we also have Wikipedia pages for both the man and his music. But, coming back to the relatively trivial article that lists the songs recorded by Anuradha Paudwal, that article is supported by nothing more than an external link to smashits.com. So here I would have to agree with CorrectKnowlege. That article is indeed on shaky grounds in terms of Wikipedia standards. However, instead of nominating that article for deletion or redirect, CorrectKnowledge has come to this AfD nomination to vote in support of his buddy, Garamond Lethe. Apparently, CorrectKnowledge is more concerned to eliminate an article about a collection of 5,018 songs composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar than he is concerned to eliminate a poorly sourced article about 1,500 songs merely recorded by a popular singer. CorrectKnowledge is correct in acknowledging systemic bias. He has probably used this argument in support of articles on Indian-related topics that he favors. Sadly, however, he would dismiss the factor of systemic bias when arguing against an article on an India-related topic that he does not favor. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am happy to disclose my involvement in these articles since it has been called into question. I monitor various noticeboards including Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Earlier this month, User:Bobrayner posted a request for input in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Progressive utilization theory. I discovered that Progressive utilization theory had been (and still is) protected due to an edit war and offered my input in resolving the dispute. Part of that dispute involves an overabundance of primary sources and a lack of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Checking the contribution histories for the editors responsible for this, I found a similar pattern of editing that involved the lack of proper sourcing in many other articles. So here I am. Location (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Come on, Location... it's more than just "involvement" with some articles. On Fringe/n, there is a thinly concealed effort to canvass support for AfD nominations regarding just about every article connected with the "Sarkarverse". And you seem to be parceling out among yourselves who will make the various nominations, all of them assured of group backing. You yourself took an active part in this process by recently filing two such AfD nominations: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ananda_Marga_Elementary_Philosophy and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Microvitum_in_a_Nutshell. On both of those nominations, you quickly acquired support from several of the same persons we see here, notably Garamond Lethe, the nominator of this AfD as well as five other simultaneous AfD nominations pertaining to the works of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Garamond Lethe supported your two nominations, so you came here to support this untenable nomination by him. Let's call a spade a spade, Location. You have been involved with systematic canvassing of support by a means that is technically legitimate but entirely contrary to the spirit of WP:CANVASS. And what we can easily see on Fringe/n is no doubt just the tip of the iceberg. Hence, your votes - and even your nominations - should be discounted by any impartial admin for their bad faith foundation. You may be motivated by what you believe to be good intentions, but you are gaming the system. As an intelligent person, you surely know that quite well. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:ANI. If you have a problem with my editing patterns, there are more appropriate forums than this. 14:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear I don't favour any of those artists, some of them may need pruning soon, and other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Rest of Abhidevananda's agruments were Ad hominem which is allowed though, I agree with Location, there are more appropriate forums to resolve them. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, CK, I was merely responding to your WP:OSE argument - fighting fire with fire, so to speak. My response merely examined the two examples that you gave (WP:OSE), correcting the inaccuracies in your descriptions and exposing the dubious correlations that you asserted. As for the ad hominem element of my argument, it arose as a consequence of my effort to explain the disconnect between your words and your actions (evidenced even in your latest response). For the record, I know that ad hominem arguments are frowned upon. As a rational man, I also find such arguments generally repugnant. Nevertheless and regrettably, in the current context, it is not just appropriate but indeed necessary for me to point out that a group of individuals - strongly represented in this AfD discussion - have been systematically targeting every article within the 'Sarkarverse', seriously disrupting sincere efforts by editors to add significant, informative, accurate, neutral, and high-quality articles here on Wikipedia. I believe that the closing admin should be mindful of this fact while seeking to determine whether there was any consensus here. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This extensive body of work deserves an article of its own in Wikipedia. It seems nonsensical to even suggest the deletion of this article. As a relatively new editor (yet longtime lurker and user) ofWikipedia, it has been appalling to watch the decimation of the Sarkar articles for what appear to be mostly reasons of bias. I note the fact that no one here has contested the fact that Sarkar composed 5,018 songs. Perhaps no one else has ever composed so many songs in the course of an entire lifetime. That is an accomplishment worthy of a separate article on Wikipedia... regardless of any Western-biased rules about notability.--DezDeMonaaa (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — DezDeMonaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
More references: It seems that there is more than one book about Prabhat Samgiita. This archive contains a PDF that I have just uploaded showing the cover and the early pages of a second book. This second book on Prabhat Samgiita is also published by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, but the author, a retired university professor, is not a member of Ananda Marga. In fact, none of the material in this PDF is written by members of Ananda Marga. In my opinion, the authors are all notable, reliable, and independent sources by WP standards. Fortunately, this book was published in English. Later today, I expect to post more links to articles, some of them perhaps in Bengali or other Indian languages. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope "Independent" in this context means the publisher does not have a conflict of interest. In this case, the publisher is publishing both the book and the appreciation (and is under effective control of the author of the book compounding the problem). That's going to constrain the frankness of opinions in the appreciation. The good news is that you've found an academic who has written a book on this topic, and it wouldn't surprise me to see that this academic recycled earlier peer-reviewed publications in writing the book (which is perfectly fine, btw). You might also want to try looking at the work of Ramaranjan Mukherji. Garamond Lethe 08:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:Prabhát Saḿgiit (that has many varying spellings such as Prabhát Sauṋgiit, Prabháta Saḿgiita, Prabháta Sauṋgiita, Prabhát Saḿgiita, Prabhát Sauṋgiita, Prabhat Sangiit, Prabhat Sangeet, Probhat Sangeet, Prabhat Shangeet, Prabhat Songeet, Prabhat Sangit, Probhat Shangeet, Probhat Songeet, Probhat Sangit, Prabhat Shongeet, Prabhat Shangit, Prabhat Songit, Probhat Shongeet, Probhat Shangit, Probhat Songit, Prabhat Shongit, Probhat Shongit etc.) meaning "Songs of the new dawn" is a collection of 5018 songs, composed in 8 different languages by P.R.Sarkar (Compare Rabindra Sangeet).

Like other topics coming from the so-called third world countries, there are much less non-independent, online and English sources about the topic compared to the huge amount of independent non-English sources (online&offline) sources. That's why, in good faith, I'm asking from the closing admin, to keep an open eye and to let some more time those who are trying to improve WP, for them to find those sources. I have the prior knowledge, that indeed, this topic has really a huge amount of sources. --Universal Life (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference: This archive contains a PDF of what seems to be a doctoral dissertation on the subject of Prabhat Samgiita. It is by an academic. The publishing house is not Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha or Ananda Marga Publications. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have a name? An author? Nevermind.... Mysticism in Prabhat Samgiit, Miss Alakananda Paria, 2000, Ananda Book Trust.

The book is the modified version of the dissertation prepared under the supervision of Dr. A. K. Mohanty, P. G. Department of Philosophy, Utkal University and submitted to the Utkal University for the Degree of M. Phil. in Philosophy. The book brings into focus the nature of the Mystical. Besides presenting a panoramic glimpse of the world of Prabhat Samgiit, it undertakes to unearth the mystical underpinnings and outpourings therein.

I believe M. Phil. is a Master's degree. Note that the author is listed as "Miss Alakananda Parida" rather than "Dr. Parida". And "Ananda Book Trust" is likely associated with "Ananda Marga", so you'll need to cite the dissertation proper. Her bibliography might be useful, but I wouldn't consider a master's thesis in isolation to be sufficient to establish notability. Garamond Lethe 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond, every Ananda you see is not connected to Ananda Marga, Ananda means happiness and in deed is a very popular and very wide-spread word in India (sometimes spelled as Anand). There is a series in Israel for example by the name Ananda. It's connected to India but no connections with Ananda Marga what-so-ever.--Universal Life (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming every use of Ananda is associated with Ananda Marga, just the ones with the legal term "Trust" appended that pays for the publications of books associated with Ananda Marga. I don't think we'll need to reach that issue, however. Garamond Lethe 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, it doesn't say Ananda Marga Trust, only Ananda Trust. --Universal Life (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference: This archive contains some extracts from a Bengali book called Buddhijiivider Drs't'ite. The extracts were written by persons who are not members of Ananda Marga. The book not only covers Prabhat Samgiita but also, among other things, the 26 volumes on philology that Sarkar produced over the same period of time as Prabhat Samgiita. However, if I am not mistaken, all of the extracts in this PDF are about Prabhat Samgiita. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope "Ananda Marga Publications". If you get in the habit of providing a citation instead of just a bare link you'll save yourself some embarrassment. Garamond Lethe 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this one, but there is one book (that I learned from my offline sources in India) called: Prabhat Samgiit: Philosophical and Literary Application by Prof. Subhas Sarkar. This professor is not a member of the organization, he's a (retired - if not mistaken) professor from Rabindra Vath University (or something similar, the voice isn't always very clear on the voip system). However, I think, as a means of saving money, the book was printed by Ananda Marga Publications. However, as the author of the book is not connected at all with the organization and the subject, the book definitely doesn't fall on the range of primary source. This is one of the offline sources, we'd spoken on your talkpage, that you could look up. --Universal Life (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Marga Publications is non-neutral when it comes to publishing decisions on Sarkar material. While this material may be used (cautiously) to improve the article it cannot be used to establish notability. What all this effort is telling me is that this book has been ignored outside the "walled garden" of Ananda Marga. That's why this book isn't notable. Garamond Lethe 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond, for God's sake! This is not a book, this is music, this is art! Secondly, I always put a lot of effort on everything that I do, I'm a perfectionist, whether I write my PhD dissertion, or an article about epigenetics or translating the interface of WP. So, don't infer anything negative from it. Moreover, effort is necessary because this is within the domain of systemic bias, there is no "walled-garden". And all articles related to Sarkar is under attack, by a group of fix-minded people gaming the system, mainly by canvassing, to further their own cause. I just can't stand injustice. This is the first time, in my more than 4 years experience with WP and its sister projects, that I lost my assumption of good faith to some editors. It's unfortunate, but true.--Universal Life (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a book. The rest of your comment should probably be discussed elsewhere. Garamond Lethe 18:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the name of the book link you sent is Prabhát saḿgiita = Songs of the new dawn. Not Prabhat Sangeet or Prabhat Samgiit. Anyone could publish a book about Rabindra Sangeet, it still doesn't make "Rabindra Sangeet" a book, only it brings out the fact that there is book published about it. Do you see the difference? So, PS is not a book! (And if you can bring up the notion of walled-garden here, then the rest of the discussion as well belongs here, that's why actually we've this deletion page on the first page - however I do not wish to discuss any more right now, nothing beneficial comes out of it, I prefer to be constructive). --Universal Life (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: It's really incredible.. Never happen to me such a systematic attack like this. WP should be mainly based on mutual aid of users, aimed to draw up or to improve new articles. Here we have the same group of users doing the opposite work and proposing tens of AfD's for all the items related with the same subject. What words can we use to define this activity, essentially aimed to hide knowledge rather than to spread it? I do not ask for help but I'm pointing out facts that anyone can check!--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of songs, not a book: The fact that books have been written about this collection of songs only establishes the notability of the collection of songs. It does not change the fact that the article that Garamond nominated for deletion is about the collection of songs and not about any particular book about that collection, especially not any book that merely talks about the lyrics of the songs without reproducing the melody of those songs (as indeed is the case with the two books (actually one series of books and an additional book) that have the words "Prabhat Samgiita" in their title. Of course, Garamond knows this full well. That is why he commented on the various newspaper articles that I listed, none of which were about any book, seeking to dismiss those newspaper articles as "likely press releases" (which, to the best of my knowledge, is not a valid ground for dismissal even if it were so). However, Garamond first introduced this remark about Prabhat Samgiita also being a book with a "<grin>". So I assumed that he was being a bit facetious there. When Location parroted Garamond's assertion of this topic being about a book, I simply ignored that as further evidence that a chum of Garamond - someone working in tandem to game the system - was simply repeating a superficial and uninformed remark, merely to support his colleague. But now I see Garamond again arguing that this is a book, and I must point out that Sarkar composed 5,018 songs, both melodies and lyrics, and those complete songs are the topic of the article that Garamond has nominated for deletion. Anyone who reads the article under discussion would know that this is so. Accordingly, this type of misdirection by Garamond and Location is entirely dishonest. Their refusal to concede even a simple point like this is why it is impossible to have any meeting of minds with them in this AfD discussion and in the many other places where they operate as a voting bloc to bully others and game the system. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note on reliable sources: While waiting for more information from my source in India (who mentioned that he would soon be going out of station for a few days), let me point out that I am not posting these references here because I consider them necessary to support the notability of this article in Wikipedia. In my estimation, that has already been well-established. I post these additional references here only to emphasize the outrageous nature of this AfD nomination and the total intractability of the nominator and his chums. But as Garamond has now started dismissing valid sources as invalid, let me reproduce here the Wikipedia policy regarding use of self-published material. According to WP:SELFSOURCE:

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

"These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."

In light of the above, it is clear that Garamond's objection to articles by independent and reliable sources simply because they appear in books that have been published by Ananda Marga Publications or Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha is contrary to established Wikipedia policy. And, anyway, these are not articles published by Sarkar about Sarkar. They are articles by independent persons talking about one of Sarkar's works. Yes, some of these articles are published by an organization that Sarkar founded, but they were not and are not currently published by Sarkar himself, because Sarkar died in 1990. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This fails the "self-serving" clause and the "based primarily on such sources" clause. Thanks for providing the quote. Garamond Lethe 19:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-serving" is not the same thing as "unduly self-serving". And the articles in the books that have been listed are not based primarily on a "self-source" but rather independent sources. The newspaper articles may or may not be a partial product of press releases, but - even if so - there is nothing extraordinary about that. Of course, it is impossible to tell whether all of those newspaper articles are primarily based on press releases, partially based on press releases, or not at all based on press releases. But, in any event, this policy is clearly in relation to autobiographical material. When self-published material is even permitted as source for Wikipedia articles that are also essentially autobiographical, then obviously such material is permitted in articles that are in no way autobiographical. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional relevant newspaper articles: I had a look at the Talk page of Prabhat Samgiita, where it seems that Universal Life is compiling sources about Prabhat Samgiita. Here are two more newspaper articles, clearly not press releases.

Times of India: Divine music that heals
Deccan Herald: Dance/music review

Apparently, in India, some newspapers do not share Garamond's view - and the view of his Fringe/n pals - that Prabhat Samgiita is just "a book" or an "artifact of a political or religious movement".

--Abhidevananda (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both of those were discussed already. One is a RAWA-sponsored performance and the other is either an op-ed piece or a letter to the editor. Garamond Lethe 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary In 1955, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar founded the Ananda Marga organization which, among other activities, handled the publication of all of his subsequent work. One of these was the Prabhat Samgiita at issue here. Ananda Marga has subsequently published a volume of selections from this work, an appreciation, and a masters thesis. Ananda Marga has also sponsored many performances and competitions based on this work. However, if by some strange catastrophe all Ananda Marga publications and references to Ananda Marga-sponsored performances were to be wiped from the earth, our only potentially reliables sources for the existence of the Prabhat Samgiita would be an inaccessible master's thesis and a short, anonymous op-ed piece.

I have found no mention of this work in any history of Indian music, either online or in the UC Berkeley collection. Three other editors who would like to see the article preserved have worked tirelessly in trying to track down additional sources of notability, to no avail. My two university contacts in Bengal were able to unearth some material that may prove useful in other Sarkar-related articles, but nothing that would help here. As notability has not been established and is unlikely to be established going forward, deletion of the article remains warranted. Garamond Lethe 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: (PA redacted by Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER) While it is true that the policy of Sarkar and hence Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha is to publish in-house, Prabhat Samgiita - as a collection of songs - is not published by the Ananda Marga Publications department but rather by the Rennaisance Artists and Writers Association (RAWA). In that regard, RAWA has published many CDs of Prabhat Samgiita. In addition to the CDs published by RAWA, there is also a fairly vast Web project at http://www.prabhatasamgiita.net/. On that site, anyone may access audio files (MP3s) for many or most of the 5,018 songs absolutely free of charge. Furthermore, the songs of Prabhat Samgiita have been sung by numerous artists, some of them members of Ananda Marga and some of them not members of Ananda Marga, some of them famous and some of them not-so-famous. In other words, the songs of Prabhat Samgiita have been released as part of the discography of many performers and through recording companies that are entirely independent of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha. See, for example, Jyoshna. So, even if Garamond's pie-in-the-sky "catastrophe" were to take place - even if "all Ananda Marga publications and references to Ananda Marga-sponsored performances were to be wiped from the earth" - still Prabhat Samgiita would survive. Prabhat Samgiita would still have a significant and growing presence in the music of many performers. That ever-expanding presence is clear in the great number of YouTube videos connected with Prabhat Samgiita. So, perhaps now Garamond would like to extend his "catastrophe" to encompass all of the CDs containing a song of Prabhat Samgiita in anyone's house as well as the work of any performer who has ever recorded even a single Prabhat Samgiita song. And perhaps now Garamond would like to extend his "catastrophe" to encompass the destruction of YouTube, Google, and the entire Internet as well. Naturally, that would mean the intrinsic destruction of Wikipedia, but Garamond seems to be doing his utmost to achieve that end anyway. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have pushed rudeness as far as you need to. Stick to the merits please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like and ROTFL. I see no reason to be dismissive of the reputable sources presented throughout this discussion. The Times of India and the Deccan Herald articles - the first by an anonymous author and the second by Mysore V Subramanya - are in widely reputable Indian newspapers. As well, a published masters thesis is by definition accessible. But Abhidevananda's summary and discussion above is correct, that is that Garamond Lethe is clearly predisposed to reject any source on this subject. All of the above discussion only proves that Garamond Lethe's research on this subject is inadequate and unreliable.--DezDeMonaaa (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

38 sources and 19 references collected from users Universal Life and Abhidevananda added on the talk page of the article. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Cornelius, there is some duplication in the links on the Talk page, which might reduce the number somewhat. But if we were to add all of the links to individual songs on http://prabhatasamgiita.net and also include links to YouTube videos of various performances of Prabhat Samgiita, then the number of links would probably come closer to 5,000. But, no doubt, Garamond Lethe would dismiss all of these links, because they are not secondary enough, they involve audio, and tomorrow the sky could fall.

--Abhidevananda (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the duplication error and added your ext. link to the list in the talk page of the article. I apologise for the error. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another resource: If one is just interested in the lyrics (or poetry) of these 5,018 songs, then perhaps http://prabhatasamgiita.info might be a more convenient resource than http://prabhatasamgiita.net. I can't say who is running the prabhatasamgiita.info website. The site is marked "Copyright© 2007, SADHIKA Infosystems. All rights reserved." but I would wonder about that claim, given that 95% of the site appears to depend on the work of others. Nevertheless, we do find there a short (and anonymous) review of Prabhat Samgiita. The last paragraph of that review begins: "Prabha'ta Sam'giita is now a full-fledged school of music with its own distinct style." --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Indepdendent Anonymous text promoting a product on a website built to sell that product is not a review. It's advertising. Garamond Lethe 15:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Garamond, I don't see any place on that website where Prabhat Samgiita is being sold. Yes, there are some products that are advertised, on the Releases page of that website, but not even one of those products mentions Prabhat Samgiita. So, if anything, it is the exact reverse of what you are alleging here. The company selling those products - InnerSong - is not a part of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha. Rather, it is a private company that describes itself as "a cooperative project". And this private company seems to be piggybacking off the popularity and notability of Prabhat Samgiita to sell its products. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another book on Prabhat Samgiita: Prabhata Samgiita; The Lyrics and Their English Renderings (Selected Songs Part 1). The translator in this book is different than in the other books, and the content seems to be just some selected songs (although apparently more than one volume is anticipated). The book was published by Ananda Marga Publications (some 13 years after Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar died). --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They also put out another collection in 2007; that's what UC Berkeley has in their stacks. Neither collection was reviewed as best I can tell. Garamond Lethe 15:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that additional information, Garamond. Whether or not these two books have been reviewed strikes me as somewhat irrelevant at this stage. The article that you nominated for deletion is Prabhat Samgiita, an article about a collection of 5,018 songs by a single composer. These are two more books written by persons other than the composer of those 5,018 songs. In other words, in addition to very many articles relating to Prabhat Samgiita in various newspapers and some assorted essays on Prabhat Samgiita (including a master's thesis), I believe we have now referenced at least 13 books about Prabhat Samgiita - all of them by persons other than the composer of this collection of songs. Taking help from the Talk page of the Prabhat Samgiita article, I count 10 books by Ac. Vijayananda Avadhuta and Avadhutika Anandamitra Acarya, another 1 book by Dr. Subhas Sarkar, and now 2 books by Ac. Priyashivananda Avadhuta. Even if these 13 books are all lacking in independence in that they have all been published by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, still I would maintain that one inescapable inference that must be reached from all of these books and newspaper articles is that Prabhat Samgiita is a prominent representative of a notable style of music. And - if we were to treat Prabhat Samgiita in terms of just its lyrics and on the basis of the notability required for books (as you seem to prefer) - then the inescapable conclusion is that Prabhat Samgiita has "has made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement" (per your own description of Ananda Marga and WP:NB). So, once again, I respectfully request you to withdraw your AfD nomination on this Wikipedia article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question what notable Indian artists about whom we have articles have made recordings of these songs? Please be specific about the recordings,and I will try to track them down & see if there is any available criticism in a Western language at NYPL-Performing Arts DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, DGG. I would have thanked you even more if you had prefaced your question with a "keep" vote. But, before replying to your question, let me also ask a question. Do we really need to go to such lengths to justify one small separate article on a collection of 5,018 songs when it seems that we already have over 10,000 Wikipedia articles on just singles that contain the words, "I wanna", in the title? This type of AfD nomination strikes me as really ridiculous, and I would go further to say that it is also shockingly oppressive. Okay, this is a WP:OSE argument, but I think the argument works in this instance. Almost six days ago, CorrectKnowledge pointed out that Wikipedia has a dedicated article that merely lists 1500 songs recorded by Anuradha Paudwal over a period 40 years. That article offers no source other than http://smashits.com! And since the time that this information came out - again, almost six days ago - has anyone here take the trouble to nominate that flimsy article for deletion? No, they have not. The fact is that, like it or not, Wikipedia has established a very clear precedent in respect to the standard required for articles about songs; and that standard is very low. Hence, it is manifestly unjust to seek a rigid and dogmatic imposition of strict rules for a small article like this - a small article about a collection of 5,018 songs composed by a single individual over a period of only eight years. Such strictness about rules goes far beyond what is applied elsewhere on Wikipedia. Already we know for sure that the Prabhat Samgiita article was nominated for deletion as part of a campaign by a group of individuals associated with Fringe/n. This is easily verified by examining the discussions there. And, from the discussions on Fringe/n, it is manifestly clear that the real reason why this article has been nominated for deletion is simply because the composer of this collection of songs was Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. So, DGG, I hope you can understand why I find it somewhat irritating at this stage to think that I must open all of the articles in the newspapers listed above and go through the names of the artists listed in those articles - those who have either performed Prabhat Samgiita or talked about it - and then search on Wikipedia to see which of them have an article here... only in order to fend off the imminent deletion of this article. Anyway, DGG, I won't complete that tedious task now, but here are two examples that I quickly found by opening one of the earlier links to a newspaper article in The Hindu. We see there that Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande performed Prabhat Samgiita in Mumbai in June of 2009. We also see in that same article that Prabha Atre also spoke with wonder about the number of songs in this collection and the short span of time in which it was produced. But there are a lot of other names in that one article and many other articles to inspect. So, sorry, but I just don't have the time right now to continue with this exercise. Frankly, in my opinion, with the time we have all wasted on this outrageous AfD nomination, we could probably have brought the Prabhat Samgiita article up to the standard required for a WP:DYK or even an WP:FA! --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need evidence to show these songs are considered important, and that would be helped by showing they are on well-known recordings by notable musicians outside his circle , not one-time performances. The question of whether the songs need be of importance to the general public outside the circle of his group is a difficult one; if you can even show that they are of central importance in their cultural circles, such as Luther's hymns in the Protestant church, that would be something, but the article on Ananda Marga gives no such indication. Even within the context of his work in general, I don't think there's evidence that these are one of his most important accomplishments--there seems to be much more discussion of his philosophy and social views. I am among those who think that the WP consensus on notability of songs is over-broad, and tends to show a great cultural bias towards US popular music, but I would suggest we correct this by decreasing that over-coverage, not expanding it to other areas. I'm also aware of the difficulties of documentation about Indian topics, and am willing to be flexible about our standards, but not abandon them; some things may need to wait until there are adequate locatable reliable sources that fit the concept of this encyclopedia. I need to say that I am very unlikely to give a keep opinion, but I first want to give it a fair chance by guiding you to finding the right evidence: you keep insisting that the number of songs is a criterion for notability , but it isn't. I suggest this might be best handled by a merge into the article on the author--there is already a sentence there about them, and perhaps we could expand that into a paragraph. As a general guide, I think you might do better by not trying to make as many articles as possible, but on making the central articles on the man and his movement stronger, with third party sources that truly meet our standards--this will be much more useful to readers, and better achieve your purpose of increasing our information. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please allow me to respond to some of your points. (1) I believe that we have established that well-known musicians outside of Sarkar's circle have performed Prabhat Samgiita and have appreciated it. I think that it perhaps goes too far to then insist that those artists must also have made recordings and that those recordings must also be well-known. Quite frankly, I am not even sure that this would be permitted according to copyright, because of the policy within Ananda Marga to publish in-house. So may I suggest that here you are demanding a standard that does not fit well in this particular instance, but that lack of fit does not necessarily imply a lack of notability. (2) Actually, the article on Ananda Marga does give the indication that you request. Luther's hymns, if I am not mistaken, are sung in Church on Sundays. In Ananda Marga, members are encouraged to attend a weekly, collective meditation on Sundays. That instruction is given as part of the social code of Ananda Marga in the book, Caryacarya Part 1. And in the article on Ananda Marga, that weekly collective meditation is mentioned. As part of that weekly program, there is the singing of Prabhat Samgiita. I quote from the article: "Ananda Marga system recommends to its members the practice of collective meditation at least once a week. These meetings called Dharma Chakras (weekly held in a place called Dhyan Mandir) are preceded by the singing of few Prabhat Samgiita ("Songs of the New Dawn" composed by the Ananda Marga founder) followed by..." So I think that this corresponds quite well with the example of Luther's hymns that you mention. (3) While I understand your point about overly broad standards, I think you can appreciate my concern that, given the current precedent on Wikipedia, the exclusion of a single dedicated article about a widely appreciated collection of 5,018 songs due to some technicalities whereas the inclusion of 10,000 "I wanna" songs smacks of injustice. I am not asking that any "standards" be loosened here. I am only asking that the standards be equitably imposed. Eliminate the article on Prabhat Samgiita when there is anything resembling a corresponding strictness in other directions as well. Until that is apparent, it only comes across as systemic bias and religious discrimination to reject Prabhat Samgiita on some flimsy technicalities that reflect a Western bias and that are not even remotely applied in an evenhanded manner. (4) I respectfully disagree regarding the significance of numbers. Yes, if it were the difference between 5 and 10 songs, then it would not be significant. But when it is 5,018 songs in only 8 years, then that becomes a notable event simply because it could well be a record. But, record or not, people like to know how many songs were written by a composer. So, for example, there is an article on Johann Sebastian Bach, and there is a separate article for the List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. And that second article begins with the number of compositions rather than any other fact: "There are over 1100 known compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach." Well, there are 5,018 known songs by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Are these songs as well known as the songs of Bach? Perhaps not. But the real question is only do they deserve a mention on Wikipedia? And my answer to that - given everything else in the musical world that appears on Wikipedia - is why the heck not? Yes, I know you gave your reasons. But I respectfully disagree. And I respectfully cannot conceive of any harm being done to Wikipedia by retaining an article on this subject. Rather, I think it benefits Wikipedia and anyone who may come to Wikipedia to know more about this subject. Merging Prabhat Samgiita as a paragraph in the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar article (as you have suggested) would only limit the scope for further expansion of this subject, something quite likely to happen in future (if other similar articles on the lifetime work of artists be taken as evidence). --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, if you see the talk page of the article, I've wikilinked some of the famous Indian musicians that sing or sang Prabhat Sangeet. Some other famous artists also sang/sing Prabhat Sangeet, that don't have WP articles, but normally are famous for singing Rabindra Sangeet. I'm right now, in the middle of adding more reliable sources to the talk page. If you want, go through what I wrote and also the sources. Also, please see the comment below. Thank you. --Universal Life (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment:
I've listed a bunch of secondary sources in the talk page of the article, with a lot of explanation. I've at hand some more sources to add, however I didn't have the time to add them yet. I'm starting again right now.

Another important note is that there are other offline sources, mainly from India, I'm trying to reach some friends over there so that they can find, locate and inform me. This might take a little while. So please hold on!

Moreover, there are a lot of controversies going on in here and closing this discussion with whatever result, will be condoning to these actions.

I was an uninvolved editor until recently. However, I started to be partially involved (in the sense that I'm trying to build more than discuss) as I can not condone such an attack to a religious minority, whatever their belief might be. I'll discuss this issue in the appropriate time, after collecting third-party resources to this article, in an appropriate location.

The nominator for deletion has voted as Redirect, as you see at the top. This brings suspicion to whether he actually intended to delete or just redirect.

Given all these sources and controversies at hand, I suggest to postpone the deletion process for a longer period of time. Respectfully, --Universal Life (talk) 20:56, 5 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ I suggest merging and redirecting to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, per User:DGG. Content should be improved and maintained there before considering a separate article. Jujutacular (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another week is enough to improve content see the talk page of the article. There are many third party sources implementing the importance of the article. And there are more, which I didn't have time to list yet. A week is enough to restructure the article with many third party sources. --Universal Life (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now OK with keeping this article, given the recent changes. It seems to have expanded to a point that merging is no longer suitable. I would also like to say, this is an unreasonably long discussion. Most of the text is here is completely unnecessary, and only obfuscates the discussion. Jujutacular (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recording, independent music store, independent review: See Reddish Blossom by Dr. Jyoshna La Trobe. At this page we see an independent review by a writer from the New Zealand Herald. Looking at here, we see that Jyoshna (Dr. La Trobe) has been reviewed on many occasions. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is unfortunate (I have told in few more AFDs too (not related to Shrii Sarkar's AFDs)) that news medias are more interested in covering news of "public demand". That's why if a film's heroine sneezes, that becomes a news. But, even if a renowned University professor or botanist or zoologist dies that does not excite news medias. It is more or less same everywhere.
Now, I want to show the circumstance first. Since these songs are written in Bengali, the references are also in Bengali language newspapers etc. But, Bengali world wide web has almost nothing and renowned newspapers like Anandabazar Patrika does not store content before 2004-2005! I have seen multiple mentions of Shri Sarkar's works and these songs in few magazines and newspapers like Bartaman, Sangbad Pratidin! But, I don't know from where I can collect these references (now). All I can do is sending emails to these two mentioned newspapers and request them to give us the copies of the news items published in their newspapers. Tell me your opinion on this. Do you suggest me to email them? If you nod, then I say, chances are very low that they'll co-operate. I also had a wish to do a large scale study to work on Shri Sarkar related articles which I could not do due to financial issues! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is the independence of the sources. If you think you can find listings for performances not sponsored by RAWA or independent reviews of any performances that would be very helpful. GaramondLethe 19:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question is "how"? Are you suggesting me to email those two mentioned newsapers? If so, then two questions/comments 1) there are almost no chance of getting assistance from them if I send email from my gmail.com id (yes, I have experience, I regularly send emails for content permission to sites and organizations, last one is this one, (I) almost never get reply), there are better chances of getting replies if someone from Wikimedia India approaches them from their wikimedia.in email id 2) if we really approach newspapers to provide news article copies from their old archive, why only this article? why not all articles in question? What do you think? Ananda Marga, the international organization could do the work, but, I don't know about them! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Newspapers maintain an archive of every single addition printed. Driving to their office and asking them for previous editions would be far more helpful than emailing them from wikimedia.in (assuming their offices are in Kolkata). Ananda Marga itself is notable and appears frequently in national media. Not so long ago they were mentioned on national television in connection with Purulia arms drop case. However, it's unlikely that you'll find any book review related to them, even in vernacular media. Though I am more hopeful about a collection of songs. Let's see what you come up with. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What I glean from the immediately preceding discussion, starting with Tito's "Comment", is an implicit recognition of notability and just some niggling over detailed aspects of mere guidelines that most likely arises only due to systemic bias. Looking at this review in a reputable national newspaper, I can only wonder: Is it really very likely that a renowned singer, Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande, would take the trouble to learn and perform four songs from Prabhat Samgiita (one in Hindi, one in Sanskrit, and two in Bengali) and then never perform any of those songs again except in another concert organized by RAWA? Given the vast number of much weaker-sourced Wikipedia articles in respect to music, is this not an apt place where the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, should kick in? If not here, then where? Is that fifth pillar just for decorative purposes, or does it have some practical implementation? And if that fifth pillar is employed on occasion, is it trotted out mostly to justify more instances of systemic bias? --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope The review (such as it is) was written by the public relations secretary of RAWA, Acharya Divyachetanananda Avadhuta (who signed it). I expect the musicians were compensated for their time. Garamond Lethe 04:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the newspaper article that I used as an example is signed by Acharya Divyachetanananda Avadhuta, who was at the time the Public Relations Secretary for Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha in India. (RAWA does not have a public relations secretary.) But that has nothing to do with my argument. I did not suggest that this article in The Hindu met all of the detailed requirements for a third-party, independent review. We've been through that point about this article already. But, independent or not, it is still a review, and that review is published in the Review section of a prominent national newspaper, The Hindu. And this review contains a photograph, tending to prove that Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande did indeed perform at the event that is reported. I have no idea whether or not Dr. Bhide-Deshpande was paid to perform. Presumably, Garamond has even less idea than I do. But how is that relevant? Professional musicians earn their livelihood by performing. My point was only that if she performed these songs once, then it seems likely that she would perform them again... even if we cannot find any document to confirm it. And my larger point - which Garamond also did not address - was that we should be getting beyond just the very type of niggling that Garamond did here in response to my comment. We already know that he rejects this newspaper article as an adequate secondary source. Repeating the same objection and totally ignoring everything that I said only tends to reinforce my point, which was that, at some stage, Wikipedia must take into account WP:BIAS and offset the uneven standards rigidly advocated by a community of younger, White, male, Western, Christians... like... well, best if I not mention names. The article on Prabhat Samgiita - an oft-performed and oft-reported collection of 5,018 songs produced by a single composer over a period of just 8 years and about which at least 13 books have been written - is a glaring instance where the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, should apply. There seems to be little doubt as to the notability of the topic. The only question is whether or not we will be able to uncover in this week or the next any specific document that will pass the type of strict muster that some persons seem hell-bent on imposing in respect to the WP article on Prabhat Samgiita but not in respect to other, much less deserving WP articles. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another review of Prabhat Samgiita: This archive contains a PDF of an article in The Hindu that reviews a 2001 performance of Prabhat Samgiita in Mumbai. Among the performers was Arati Ankalikar-Tikekar. This article is not presented as a press release but rather as an independent review, proclaimed by the bold headline (name of section) at the top of the page. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a RAWA-sponsored performance and not much in the way of a review (although it is much more substantial than the press releases provided earlier). As the review below is much stronger I'll focus my comments there. Garamond Lethe 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another independent review of Prabhat Samgiita: This archive contains a PDF of an article in The Hindu written by Ranee Kumar that reviews a 2003 performance of Prabhat Samgiita in Hyderabad. Among the performers were Dr. Seshulatha Kosuru (aka K Seshulatha Vishwanath) and Pandit Vithal Rao. Once again, this article is not a press release but an independent review, not just of the performance but also of the music (Prabhat Samgiita). --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response The above is an actual review written by someone who, to the best of my knowledge, is not associated with AM. This is far and away the strongest evidence of notability that has been presented thus far, and I want to congratulate Abhidevananda for his perseverance in tracking this down.

My remaining concern is that this is an Ananda Marga-sponsored performance of an Ananda Marga-published work. When the "reviews" are also published by Ananda Marga then the lack of notability is obvious (at least to me). Given an independent critiques of the collection of the work or a set of non-Ananda Marga-sponsored performances with independent reviews I think the presence of notability is equally as obvious. For this situation I'm genuinely unsure and would like to see some additional discussion of how this review changes the perception of this work.

One possible way forward would be renaming the article Performances of Prabhat Samgiita. That completely avoids the questions of self-publication and makes the question of RAWA-sponsored performances less relevant. Additionally, this review directly supports the notability of the performance. Comments? Garamond Lethe 19:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOPE The subject of Prabhat Samgiita merits its own dedicated article. I have no objection to creating yet another dedicated article specifically for listing "Performances of Prabhat Samgiita". And we could also have a third dedicated article listing all of the "Musicians Who Performed Prabhat Samgiita". But an article in chief on Prabhat Samgiita is well merited, and it should be a precursor for the additional articles that Garamond has now implicitly proposed.

Let me also address Garamond's remarks about self-publishing. While it is true that all of the songs of Prabhat Samgiita were composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Sarkar did not actually publish any those songs, and he is not publishing them now (more than 20 years after his demise). An organization that Sarkar founded holds the copyright on his music and his literature. Like many similar organizations that hold a copyright on their founder's intellectual property, Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha prefers to publish Sarkar's works in-house. But I do not believe that such type of in-house publishing is comprised within WP:SELFPUBLISH. This is not at all a case of vanity publishing and should not be deemed or treated as such. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires a disinterested third party. Ananda Marga publishing does not fulfill that requirement, and neither does RAWA. Garamond Lethe 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then say non-independent or non-third-party. Do not say self-published, because that is incorrect. As for the third-party requirements, what I read at WP:THIRDPARTY is (1) "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." (2) "At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective." I believe that somewhere in the midst of all those newspaper articles that you dismissed as "likely press releases", the few that you did not dismiss as "likely press releases", and all the other assorted material, we certainly must have covered the minimal requirement for a stand-alone article on Prabhat Samgiita. Why not do the decent thing and withdraw your AfD nomination? --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one would think that somewhere in the mountain of citations that has been assembled there would be at least one performance not organized by RAWA. There isn't. Here's what we have so far that may be independent from both RAWA and AM:

) An anonymous editorial or letter to the editor.
) An inaccessible masters thesis.
) A potentially independent album whose single review needs sourcing
) Two newspaper articles reviewing separate performances of a selection of songs

I can be persuaded that the performances are notable, but I cannot see how that notability goes to either individual songs or the thousands of songs that weren't performed. (Yes, the corpus is mentioned in passing in the two articles, but the corpus is not reviewed.)

The simplest way of establishing notability would have been an independent review of the corpus as a whole, and we haven't found that yet. A much harder way would be a collection of independent performances and their independent reviews. There's one album that might fall in this category but we haven't seen the review yet. And so we're left with two independent reviews of non-independent performances. Taking all that together, in my opinion, doesn't establish the notability of the corpus.

I'll offer my compromise again. Move this to Performances from the Prabhat Samgiita where you're on solid ground wrt notability and you've have no problem picking up your DYK. Alternatively you can keep trying to convince other editors here that you have the better argument. Garamond Lethe 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing vote to keep and suggesting to consider withdraw nomination after last newspaper scans provided by Ac. Abhidevananda! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC) the page has become excessively large. Ac. Abhidevananda, could you please make a list of all references you have provided here? You can make the table below --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of references
Publisher	Title, URL	Comment
Example University	Example
Example	Example
Example	Example

Tito, I think this would duplicate the effort that's being made at the talk page of the article. Garamond Lethe 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, I think that's a very good idea. While Garamond is right that there is already an effort by Universal Life to organize that documentation on the Talk page of the article, which is in the process of being rewritten, some of the material there may not have been posted here for consideration in respect to this AfD nomination. Moreover, what has been posted here is scattered throughout a long page, and so the abundance of coverage might not be fully apparent. So I agree with your suggestion, Tito; but I think it would be more efficient to request Universal Life to port that material over to this page. By the way, the rewriting of the Prabhat Samgiita article is looking very good. I think that once this AfD nomination is out of the way, this article will make a very good candidate for WP:DYK. "Did you know that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar composed 5,018 songs, all within the last eight years of his life?" --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the talk page link, I thought to collpase all references here and there scattered in this discussion and keep only the table! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, here is the talk page and if you scroll down you'll see as many as 16 secondary sources. I haven't added there yet the latest secondary sources that I've found and that Ac. Abhidevananda has added to this page. However, I'm restructuring the main page; Prabhat Samgiita and I started adding all of them there. I think there'S no sense keeping the deletion tag up anymore, as it has been demonstrated that there are numerous independent and third-party sources about PS. --Universal Life (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Could anyone locate this PhD Dissertion:

Duffin, K. S. (1987). Prabhat Samgiit, Songs of the Dawn: A Study of Music in Modern Indian Society (Doctoral dissertation, Hollins College). --Universal Life (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Ladies and gentlemen, we have an article! Nice work, Universal Life, that took a nontrivial amount of effort. I don't know if I can get that through interlibrary loan or not but I'll definitely call the university library on Monday and see what I can do. If you would rather have someone else handle it I understand and will stand aside. !vote changed from delete to keep. GaramondLethe 23:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. This is great Garamond, finally, it was time :) --Universal Life (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, UL, that change of stance was long overdue. Regarding the Duffin paper that you cited, it appears that it is a master's thesis and not a doctoral dissertation. On the other hand, the good news is that it seems to be available. See Call No. Archives L-3: 1987 Duffin c.2 here. I have also been informed about another published book on Prabhat Samgiita by Dr. Aditya Mohanty from Orissa. I am told that Mohanty's book is based on his doctoral thesis. I have no further information on Mohanty's book just yet. Perhaps by tomorrow. If this AfD nomination is still open when I receive more information, I will post whatever else I learn about that book here. If not, I will post the information at Talk:Prabhat Samgiita. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I changed my !vote based on this being a Ph.D. dissertation. Dammit, I thought we were done here. Nice catch, Abhidevananda. Well, let's keep digging. The library may have gotten it wrong. I do think we're close. Garamond Lethe 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond, in my estimation, we passed "close" long ago. Out of curiosity, though, why do you think it makes a difference whether this is a doctoral or a master's thesis? The main point is that it is a published and available academic review (even if no one here may be able to get their hands on a copy in the short term). Here we are not seeking details about Prabhat Samgiita but only establishing notability. At WP:GNG, there is no distinction between a Ph.D and a Master's thesis. Furthermore, what is required are "secondary sources". And at WP:SECONDARY, it is clearly stated that "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources." So the fact that the various articles in newspapers are about performances organized by RAWA is entirely extraneous. And all of the books about Prabhat Samgiita that are published by Ananda Marga Publications but written by authors other than Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar should qualify as secondary sources pertinent to the establishment of notability. One other point I may mention here. You may recall that DGG indicated that notability might also be established if it could be shown that Prabhat Samgiita has a similar type of central importance in Ananda Marga cultural circles as Luther's hymns have for the Protestant church. I believe that I did indeed establish that point in my response to DGG, and I would be happy to amplify that point if DGG or anyone else is inclined to know more in this respect. So from all of these angles, it is my firm conviction that the notability of Prabhat Samgiita has been well-established here. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the difference between a Ph.D. and a Masters, well, first it's policy: WP:RS says "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Having written one of each I can give you a firsthand account of why this policy is here. A MS need be nothing more than a larger, two-semester term paper. There's not necessarily a requirement for original research, the results are generally not published, there's much less scholarly review of the results and, for all of these reasons, they are cited in the peer-reviewed literature. The Ph.D. dissertation is a multi-year effort with very close review by multiple scholars. It can be published in its own right and is usually the basis for several other peer-reviewed publications. There's also no problem with citing a dissertation directly. I suppose the MS is the last bit of schoolwork and the dissertation is the first bit of scholarship.

As to Luther's hymns: I don't think Luther's estate owned the publishing company that printed the hymns, nor did it sponsor public performances of them. I also assume there's a fair amount of independent scholarship in that area. You might be able to convince DGG with that line of argument, but I don't think the parallels are close enough to convince me.

All that being said, you're on the trail of a Ph.D. dissertation and I think I've tracked down the author of the MS dissertation (which might contain cites to earlier academic work). If none of that pans out and we can't think of anything else then you can still have an article on the performances. Garamond Lethe 14:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond, I humbly request you to read this. Even though you'll probably say to yourself, why is he sending this link to me for reading, I humbly request you to go through it, even if you don't read all fine prints. And I don't mean to make any point by this, only to remind you of two things. There is no/ there should be no bureaucracy in WP. We are not to abide by guidelines letter-to-letter. Principles are not independent of each other. They are parts of a whole, thus they should apply always in cooperation never losing sight of the fact that the aim is the improvement of WP. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Please, don't loose sight of why the notability guideline exists! The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. I think, you have lost the elasticity in your thoughts about it, so you're trying to literally apply the rules, without having the larger vision of the improvement of Wikipedia. And honestly, if I was the one being said this, I wouldn't rush to reply, instead I would try to really get the message... as I'm totally writing this in good faith. Conventions in Wikipedia, have some significance, but please don't overestimate that significance, Wikipedia's core principles and its spirit is always and should always be superior to any convention what-so-ever. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with all of this, but I don't think you appreciate how I've been putting it into practice.

We have two WP:SPA editors here who are editing untethered to any policy. Both have persistent issues with WP:IDHT and there are ongoing problems of WP:COI, personal attacks, spamming AfD with cut'n'paste diatribes, etc. All of this behavior is against policy. However, as you've pointed out above, we don't have to enforce those policies when doing so doesn't advance the larger goal. And so, at least for the moment, I've let that behavior slide.

That leaves the problem of how to deal with the WP:SOAPBOX that's been constructed. In my best judgement, deleting the obviously non-notable Sarkar articles in batches would get us to the point where we can bring the remaining articles up to compliance. Because of this surrounding context, I am not going to !vote for keeping this article unless notability is obvious and uncontroversial. We don't need another yet another marginal Sarkar-related article. If we do demonstrate notability, great! Then we'll have a solid article that will survive regardless of what else happens with the Sarkarverse, and I've love to use this article as a lever to improve the others.

So, to sum up: I don't mind bending the rules on WP:CIVILITY, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:COI in order to make a better encyclopedia. I don't think in this particular case bending the rules on those as well as WP:NOTABILITY accomplishes that goal.

PS: I may have some good news for you in ~24 hours.

(The good news: I've spoken with a subject expert and invited them to register an account and comment here. I'll leave it to them to introduce themselves should they decide to participate. Garamond Lethe 20:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Garamond Lethe 22:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(This response is subsequent to my earlier Wow response below. Here I only address GL's latest (indented) remarks that have been tacked on a day later but kept within the ambit of the earlier signature and time stamp.) Given that GL has now changed his vote again (for maybe the fourth or fifth time) - and his latest vote is "Delete" - I would hazard a guess that the potential "good news for you" that he was promising to UL a day ago was actually not good news for UL but rather for GL. And now, oddly enough, immediately following a rant alleging WP:SPA editors in this discussion, GL announces that he has "invited" someone to open a WP:SPA account in order to comment here. But, leaving all of that aside, do we really need to hear from a "subject expert" when that subject expert is clearly not an expert on Wikipedia policies in respect to notability (the only matter that should be under consideration in this discussion)? Certainly not. Though I would welcome any and all commentary on the subject of Prabhat Samgiita, the quality of the compositions - assuming that this is the field of expertise of GL's 'expert' - is not really what we are considering here. In respect to notability, the most important point is that people are commenting on the subject, not whether the comments are favorable or unfavorable. Perhaps it would be better if GL were to "invite" his expert to write an article about Prabhat Samgiita, which GL could then reference in a Critiques section of the Prabhat Samgiita article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow GL, most of those remarks have absolutely no relation to this discussion of your AfD nomination on Prabhat Samgiita. Indeed, most of those remarks might well cross the line on what is acceptable in such a discussion. However, when you talk about "deleting the obviously non-notable Sarkar articles in batches", I would point out that "obviously non-notable" is just your opinion, and I would also point out that you apparently considered Prabhat Samgiita to be "obviously non-notable". At this stage of our discussion, I think it is clear to everyone, including yourself, that this is not the case! --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: The nominator has voted keep. --Universal Life (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Quite Speedy Keep Yet, but close as nom. Garamond Lethe 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three (3) more newspaper articles: Here are three more newspaper articles. They are quite old... from the era of cassettes rather than CDs, I believe. The Hindi article is from Nava Bharat newspaper. The Bengali articles are from Pratidin and Vartaman. If I am not mistaken, all of these newspapers are prominent and reputable. Perhaps the reviewers who wrote the articles are also. Someone else will have to do any necessary translation, as I am not competent for that task. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some information about these scanned articles In the Pratidin scan (Bengali newspaper), the right-hand cassette features the picture of Ramkumar Chattopadhyaya/Chatterjee, a prominent and popular Bengali singer. His name is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph, 2nd line. The byline on the article is Konad Dasgupta. In the Vartaman scan (Bengali newspaper), the upper right of the six short articles is a review of the same cassette, featuring Ramkumar Chattopadhyaya/Chatterjee. His name is mentioned in the 2nd line. The byline on the article is Pradip Rakshit. The Nava Bharat scan (Hindi newspaper) is similar. In other words, they all review cassettes released by RAWA that feature popular, independent singers. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Details about Cassette: Sarkar, Prabhat Rainjan. "Prane Ceyechi Tomare" (Renaissance Cassette 41). Sung by Ramkumar Chattopadhyaya; instrumental arrangements by V. Balsara. © 1996 by RAWA. Cassette tape. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Ramkumar Chattopadhyaya: Though he does not have a dedicated article on Wikipedia (for reasons unknown to me), he is best known for his performance of Tappa gan and Shyama Sangeet. The former WP article mentions Ramkumar Chattopadhaya prominently in the History section. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 1997 news article (byline "Our Correspondent") in the well-reputed national newspaper, The Asian Age. This article is clearly not a press release. The article talks about the release of six (6) audio cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita, sung by noted Indian singers: Ramkumar Chattopadhay, Indrani Sen, Kavita Krishnamurthy, and Sushmita Goswami. This article also quotes Ramkumar Chattopadhyay talking about Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar as well as his Prabhat Samgiita. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another newspaper article: Going back in time, this archive contains a scan of a 1995 news article (byline Parnab Mukherjee), also in the well-reputed national newspaper, The Asian Age. Once again, this article is clearly not a press release. Rather, like the previous article, it is a news report. In addition to reporting the imminent release of state-of-the-art audio cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita, this article also talks about Prabhat Samgiita as a musical genre. Interestingly, the article reports the inclusion of Prabhat Samgiita as course material of the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samiti, which appears to be a tertiary educational institution. I quote the second paragraph of this newspaper article: "Prabhatsangeet is the name given to the genre of songs written and composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar also known as Sri Anandamurthiji. Prabhatsangeet has also found a place in the curriculum of the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samity. A board have been formed to regulate the albums and a detailed syllabus have been drawn. Music personalities like V. Balsara, Ramkumar Chattopadhyay and Madhuri Chattopadhyay, Indrani Sen are involved with the genre." --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is short enough to be reproduced here in its entirety.

Global release of Prabhatgeet soon By Parnab Mukherjee. Calcutta, Dec. 15: Anandamargis are going hi-tech. They ahve decided to launch their new range of Prabhatsangeet audio cassettes, recorded with state-of-art technology globally. The latest Prabhatsangeet album wich will have an international release in January, feature[s] Kavita Krishnamurthy and is currently being remixed at London. Informed sources revealed that the Anandamargis are tying up with National Cassettes to market Prahatsangeet albums all over the state.

Prabhatsangeet is the name given to the genre of songs written and composed by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar also known as Sri Anandamurthiji. Prabhatsangeet has also found a place in the curriculum of the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samity. A board have been formed to regulate the albums and a detailed syllabus have been drawn. Music personalities like V. Balsara, Ramkumar Chattopadhyay and Madhuri Chattopadhyay Indrani Sen are involved with the genre.

Priyashibananda Abdhut said: "The songs of Anandamurthiji has gained popularity. We ahve released 16 albums among the devotees and for private circulation. 1,00 [sic] training schools have been established all over the state.

So we now have Ananda Marga sponsored recordings to go along with the Ananada Marga sponsored books and performances. The school might be a lead, but my first question is going to be whether it is affiliated with AM. This moves me back to a firm delete. Garamond Lethe 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very bizarre: (1) I have already explained that the copyright on Prabhat Samgiita is currently held by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha and that it is the policy of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha to publish in-house. Hence, there is nothing unusual or irregular to have primarily Ananda Marga sponsored books, performances, and recordings in relation to Prabhat Samgiita. Anything else, without explicit permission, might tend to violate that copyright. (2) The school (Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samiti) is not associated with Ananda Marga. GL, is there any genuine evidence to that effect... other than your wish for it to be so? (3) Regarding your vote... let's see: Delete => Redirect => Nonsensical compromise => Keep => Not yet speedy keep but close => Firm delete. And what is the cause of the latest shift? A newspaper article that establishes notability. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Films already released that contain Prabhat Samgiita: (1) Namah Shivaya Shantaya (2) PROUT (The Movie) --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those joining in late, PROUT is a sister organization to Ananda Marga. Not sure why a blog is now considered a reliable source. Garamond Lethe 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This is just misdirection and misinformation, GL. I have already told you at least 20 times that PROUT is a social theory... that there is no organization associated with Ananda Marga called PROUT. There is, however, an organization called Proutist Universal, which propagates PROUT. And there is also an organization called Renaissance Universal - a part of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha - that propagates PROUT. "PROUT (The Movie)" was produced by Renaissance Universal. Offhand, I don't know who produced Namah Shivaya Shantaya. Presumably, it was RAWA. Again, so what? I was just providing information. You discount the 13 books written about Prabhat Samgiita, because they were published in-house, but I do not. The same goes for films. However, if you look at the next bullet, you will see that I mentioned that that film is completely independent. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film under production that will contain Prabhat Samgiita: The upcoming feature film, Stars in Her Eyes, directed by Athina Tsoulis (see New Zealand Writers Guild) with Jyoshna La Trobe as musical director (see here), will contain two Prabhat Samgiita songs: (1) Tumi dhara dile (2) Tomare bhalobasi. I have no link to prove that... just some personal correspondence from the musical director, which I can convert to a formal document, should that serve any practical purpose. Note that this film is completely independent of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha and RAWA. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this needs any further comment. Garamond Lethe 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes it does require further comment, Garamond. I stated that this completely independent film will include Prabhat Samgiita in the soundtrack. I also stated that, if need be, I can get a signed letter from the musical director of the film that this is the case. However, if anyone is not satisfied with my word on this, then s/he may directly contact Jyoshna. She is not hard to find... I see, for example, that she is on Facebook. As to the relevance of this point, it has to do with the nominator's remark (in his nomination for deletion) that Prabhat Samgiita is just an "artifact of a political or religious movement". This proves that Prabhat Samgiita is not "just an artifact" - that it is very much in use in the present day, for example, in this independent film project. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 2002 news article (byline Libini Joy) in the well-reputed regional newspaper, Deccan Herald. This article is not a press release, although an interview of some sort almost surely would have occurred. The article talks at length about Prabhat Samgiita and Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The article ends with information about an upcoming event in Bangalore to be introduced with a dance production by the Shambhavi School of Dance (not associated with Ananda Marga). --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The composer has sought to bring about a true awakening of the human soul by kindling the spark of real devotion." Doesn't read like a third-party review to me. Garamond Lethe 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Garamond thinks that a sentence or even some sentences do not read like a third-party review, the fact is that there is a clear byline attached to the article (Libini Joy), and the article talks at length about Prabhat Samgiita and Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. It is also an undeniable fact that the article ends with a mention of an upcoming performance in association with an independent dance school, the Shambhavi School of Dance. Obviously, the correspondent did research of some sort, perhaps reading statements by others (like Ramkumar Chattopadhyay)... but then isn't that exactly what we also do here on Wikipedia? ? --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 2002 news article (byline AB) in The New Indian Express. This article is not a press release. This Monday news article reports on a "cultural evening organised by RAWA last Saturday [2002-09-07]". The article talks about Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Ananda Marga, and RAWA (which, it seems, should also have a dedicated Wikipedia article that, maybe, would not be nominated for deletion by Garamond Lethe and his FRINGE/n chums ). Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the article is the remark by the Vice Chancellor of the University of Madras. I quote: "At some point in our lives, we are elevated to great heights through art. Tonight was one such experience." --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for those joining late, RAWA is an Ananda Marga sub-organization. Garamond Lethe 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, RAWA is an affiliated organization of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha. But the University of Madras is not. And the correspondent who wrote this article (AB) would almost certainly have attended the event as that is how the article is written. So when we read in the article a quotation from the Vice Chancellor of the University of Madras in his closing words after the program, that amounts to a reliable report of an independent endorsement of Prabhat Samgiit by a reputable academic, Rev Fr Dr S Ignacimuthu. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 2002 news article (no byline) in a popular Indian daily newspaper, The Hindu. This article is not a press release. It is a more-or-less neutral report of what took place at a RAWA-organized cultural event in December 2002 at Mumbai's Nehru Centre. Perhaps of particular interest in this news report is the fact that yet another renowned singer, Shruti Sadolikar Katkar, performed three Prabhat Samgiita songs at the event. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement regarding Prabhat Samgiita and the upcoming film 'Stars in Her Eyes': As Garamond Lethe expressed derision regarding the significance of my assertion that two Prabhat Samgiita songs will be included in the soundtrack of the upcoming, independent film, Stars in Her Eyes, I requested a statement from the Musical Director of the film to confirm that fact. Here is the signed statement from Dr. Jyoshna La Trobe that I have just received. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially fails WP:RS. Garamond Lethe 13:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, GL: Did you just make that one up? I've had a look at WP:RS, and nowhere do I find anything like "trivially fails". Here we have the musical director of an upcoming film talking about what will be included in the soundtrack of that film. Surely this is as reliable a source for that information as we can get. Even in the highly unlikely event that these two songs never make it into the final soundtrack, the intention to include them in the soundtrack is itself pertinent to the question of notability for Prabhat Samgiita. Furthermore, as a person holding a doctorate in ethno-musicology, the words of Dr. La Trobe in respect to Prabhat Samgiita do carry weight. Although her words should not be treated as undeniable fact, they are still relevant as expert opinion. Indeed, it seems odd that you would even question such a thing, much less disparage it, after having announced only a day ago that you had canvassed a "subject expert" and encouraged her/him to set up a WP:SPA only for the purpose of weighing in on this discussion. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." is the first sentence of WP:RS. This letter isn't published. End of story. Garamond Lethe 17:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GL, we are only establishing notability here. No one has suggested that we write an article based on this one statement or even that we should include this statement or any reference to it in the article itself. However, the fact is that this letter has indeed been published. It was published the moment I pointed everyone to a location on the Web where it has been archived. According to WP:RS: "The term 'published' is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Here, the question arises as to who or what is a "reputable party". Frankly, I have seen no official definition of "reputable" in respect to Wikipedia. However, this entire matter is such a small point that it is hardly worth arguing about. The only purpose of this document was to establish the intent of the musical director of a film to include some songs of Prabhat Samgiita in the soundtrack of an independent film. I am confident that this purpose has been satisfactorily achieved. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another newspaper article: This archive contains a scan of a 2001 news article (byline Srimpy Wadhwa) in The Statesman. This article is not a press release. Rather, it is a detailed and independent review of two cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita released by RAWA. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argument summations[edit]

As we seem to be coming to the end of a lengthy AfD debate, I believe that it is time to start summarizing the evidence presented for deletion or retention of the Prabhat Samgiita article. Additional evidence or comments are, of course, still welcome; but I respectfully suggest that they be placed above this portion of the page. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you are new to the Afd process, so you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions. WP:AFDEQ indicates that Afds are not to be structured in a format that tallies !votes, and WP:AFDFORMAT suggests that you do not need to bold every new comment. In line with WP:TLDR, it certainly helps others to understand your recommendations when you stay focus and keep your comments brief. Thanks. Location (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intent was for me to provide a summary so that the unlucky admin who wanted to close this would not be forced to wade through all of the previous comments. However, while this was done in good faith I do see how it could be misinterpreted as asking everyone to re-!vote in the proper box. I prepared a summary of my point of view and will post it here if requested by the (potentially) closing admin. Garamond Lethe 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For 'delete'[edit]

(see above) Garamond Lethe 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond, I have moved your remarks to the section set aside for your summation. I believe that it will be much clearer for the closing admin if we do not interrupt each other's summations and if we adhere to this structure. As I am now summing up the arguments for keep, I am not inclined to engage in further debate. I completely agree with Jujutacular's remark that this AfD nomination has become "an unreasonably long discussion". --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my comments to the intended section. A summary would have been acceptable if you had summarized. As you're restating every argument you made without addressing any of the criticisms of the argument I suppose we need to continue the conversation. Garamond Lethe 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For 'keep'[edit]

Prabhat Samgiita as a notable event: The argument against retention is purely on the grounds of notability. To counter that, let us first consider Prabhat Samgiita as an event - the creation of 5,018 songs (and possibly a new genre of music) by a single composer, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, over a span of just eight years at the very end of his life. For notability of an event, the requirements are set out in detail at WP:EVENT. Prabhat Samgiita meets all of the requirements listed on that page in respect to lasting effects, geographical scope, depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. To substantiate this point, the following table is only a partial list of Indian newspapers that have reported and commented on aspects of the event. This list is derived from the limited and relatively recent coverage available on the Web as well as clippings that were only rarely collected and preserved. As the event took place between the years 1982 to 1990, there would have been articles on the subject ever since 1982 (31 years). Here, however, we see only articles from the last 12 years, the oldest dating back to 2001. Keeping in mind the great difficulty experienced in regard to collecting information from an underdeveloped non-Western country, this list is impressive. Furthermore, keeping in mind that this list mostly consists of articles from English-language newspapers, we can only speculate as to the amount of material that has come out in non-English newspapers and magazines, but presumably it would be a lot. (Notes: (1) Only newspaper articles are listed in the following table. But there have also been at least 13 books and two master's theses published on the same subject. These are all referenced in the above discussion and at Talk:Prabhat Samgiita. (2) As the subject pertains to music, there have undoubtedly been numerous radio and television programs - not just news reports - that have also covered this subject. Audio-visual media are more suited than the printed word to coverage of an art form. Nevertheless, due to the much greater difficulty of locating and reproducing such coverage, no attempt has been made to do so.)

Indian newspapers that have run articles concerning Prabhat Samgiita
Newspaper	URL of article or archive	Comment
The Times of India	Times of India: Divine music that heals
The Telegraph (Calcutta)	Timeout (Performing Arts 2011) Timeout (Performing Arts 2009) Timeout (Performing Arts 2007) Timeout (Performing Arts 2005)
The Hindu	Prabhat Samgiita Divas celebrated Friday Review Delhi (Songs of Dawn) Friday Review Bangalore (Music for humanity) A feast of dance, music and drama
Deccan Herald	Deccan Herald: Dance/music review Songs of the dawn
The Statesman	Driven by devotion Soul-stirring
The Asian Age	Prabhat Sarkar's cassettes released Kavita Krishnamurthy sings for Margis
Hindustan Times	Your weekend guide: Listen (Songs of the new dawn)
The New Indian Express	Art for society
Bartaman	Bengali newspaper article on release of cassettes involving prominent musical artists
Sangbad Pratidin	Bengali newspaper article on release of cassettes involving prominent musical artists
Nava Bharat	Hindi newspaper article on release of cassettes involving prominent musical artists
Afternoon (newspaper)	Top cultural icon feted

--Abhidevananda (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat Samgiita as a notable collection of songs: This argument is complicated by the fact that WP:NMUSIC does not seem to cover an entire collection of 5,018 songs. Rather, it covers much less expansive topics - single songs, albums, recordings, composers, lyricists, performers, and the like. Perhaps the reason for this omission is that such collections are very rare; and whenever such a collection is written up in a dedicated article on Wikipedia, no one presumes to nominate that article for deletion. See, for example, Rabindranath Tagore and Rabindra Sangeet. See, for example, Kazi Nazrul Islam and Nazrul Sangeet. So the question naturally arises: What is so different in respect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and Prabhat Sangeet? Leaving aside the fact that Prabhat Samgiita contains literally thousands more songs than both of those other two music collections combined (and avoiding any comment about richness and diversity of melodies), the only significant difference is that someone - or rather some persons - have taken upon themselves the mission to stop what they consider to be the proliferation of Wikipedia articles on topics connected with what they call the 'Sarkarverse' (see User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles). But is that a legitimate reason to reject valid articles - articles that would pass muster without a blink if the author or composer were someone else? No, it is not. Rather, if such discrimination were to be accepted, it would only reflect poorly on Wikipedia.

Although nothing at WP:NMUSIC directly applies to such a huge collection of songs as Prabhat Samgiita - a collection of songs that some experts consider to have established a new genre of music - still some sections of the guidelines there may have indirect relevance. For example, the section entitled Others lists five criteria for "composers and performers outside mass media traditions". Presumably, if a composer meets any of those five criteria, s/he may be deemed notable. However, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar meets all five of those criteria. Going up a bit on the page, the final two sentences of the preceding section Criteria for composers and lyricists read: "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible." Here, our situation is the exact inverse of that. We have too much verifiable material and too detailed an article to be reasonably accommodated through merger in the article about the composer, who is known for multiple works. Though the situation is the inverse, the conclusion is the same - such a merger may not be possible (and indeed that is the contention here).

Finally, to substantiate the notability of Prabhat Samgiita as a collection of songs, here is a table listing notable, independent musicians who have either performed Prabhat Samgiita or commented favorably on it. The table is gleaned from the preceding AfD debate (including the newspaper articles referenced in the preceding table) and Talk:Prabhat Samgiita. Note that no claim is made that this table is in any way complete. No doubt many additional entries could be added in future.

Notable, independent musicians who have performed Prabhat Samgiita or commented favorably on it
Musician	Performance or appreciation	Comment
Ramkumar Chattopadhyay	Performance and appreciation	Also released six cassettes of Prabhat Samgiita (later re-released as CDs)
Jyoshna La Trobe	Performance and appreciation	Also released one independent CD containing Prabhat Samgiita songs and will soon release an independent film with two Prabhat Samgiita songs in its soundtrack
Rashid Khan	Performance and appreciation
Archana Udupa	Performance and appreciation
R. K. Srikantan	Appreciation
Shzr Ee Tan	Performance
Haimanti Sukla	Performance
Manoj Kumar	Performance
Ashwini Bhide-Deshpande	Performance
Kavita Krishnamurthy	Performance
Seshulatha Kosuru	Performance
Vithal Rao	Performance
V. Balsara	Performance
Sushmita Goswami	Performance
Shruti Sadolikar Katkar	Performance

In addition to all of these performers, we also see appreciative statements by reputable and independent academics like Rev Fr Dr S Ignacimuthu, the then Vice Chancellor of the University of Madras. Furthermore and greatly significant, the preceding AfD debate reveals that various independent dance schools, music schools, and dramatists have gotten involved with Prabhat Samgiita. Prominent among them are the Shambhavi School of Dance and the Nikhil Bharat Sangeet Samiti, which according to one news report in The Asian Age has included Prabhat Samgiita as part of its curriculum.

--Abhidevananda (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few words about the nomination itself: Let us examine, sentence by sentence - and sometimes clause by clause - the words of the AfD nomination to see whether that nomination has been substantiated.

Has the nomination for deletion been substantiated?
Statement in the nomination	What the AfD debate revealed
The best citation I'm able to find is the one included in the article: a footnote in a historical work on genocide attesting to the existence of this collection.	However, we have seen that there are many, many other citations. There are at least thirteen books dedicated to Prabhat Samgiita (including at least one book that appears to be independently written and independently published); scholarly works (master's theses and also a brief mention in a Sohail Inayatullah book, Understanding Sarkar: The Indian Episteme Macrohistory and Transformative Knowledge (Brill, 2002, ISBN 9004121935)); some films (including one upcoming and entirely independent film); and a huge number of newspaper reports (mostly detailing presentations organized by RAWA).
What other little commentary exists is not independent...	Clearly, the word "little" is erroneous in that clause. And the implied assertion that, for example, none of the many newspaper articles are independent is nothing short of ludicrous.
... and based on this I don't see any way to establish notability.	If the nominator's research accurately reflected all of the information that is available, then maybe it would have been difficult to establish notability. But, as demonstrated over the course of this debate, the nominator's research was highly deficient.
The above can fit comfortably within the Sarkar biographical article.	Perhaps the original article, which was just a stub, could have fit comfortably into the Sarkar biographical article. But it was never intended that the Prabhat Samgiita stub would remain so incomplete. Certainly, the greatly expanded article now being written by Universal Life will not "fit comfortably" inside another article. Moreover, from the AfD debate, it seems reasonable that at least one additional, dedicated article about Prabhat Samgiita be created simply to list RAWA performances of Prabhat Samgiita (per the suggestion of the nominator himself). And, considering Wikipedia precedent, yet another dedicated article could be created simply to list all 5,018 songs within the collection of songs known as "Prabhat Samgiita", referencing the two websites [47] [48] dedicated to Prabhat Samgiita for music and lyrics and the many books that discuss only the lyrics of the songs (see Talk:Prabhat Samgiita).
As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a 'political or religious movement' I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement.	Clearly, from all of the evidence presented above, Prabhat Samgiita is not just an "artifact". Equally clearly, from all of the evidence above, Prabhat Samgiita certainly has influenced Ananda Marga. It would be absurd to imagine otherwise. Given the amount of evidence available - much of it easily found by a Google search - it is somewhat surprising that the nominator was not able to find any independent sources attesting to that influence. As seen in the AfD debate, many newspaper articles have reported independent sources remarking not merely on the influence of Prabhat Samgiita in respect to Ananda Marga but indeed on the entire field of music and even potentially on all humankind. Regarding the words at the beginning of the nominator's sentence, "as always", those words merely reflect the nominator's predisposition to reject any achievement of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.
Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements...	The claim by the nominator that "Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements" stands in stark contrast to what other, presumably more knowledgeable persons have stated. For example, Johan Galtung, who - unlike the nominator - has no doubt taken the trouble to inspect some of Sarkar's works, stated: "Sarkar is so much deeper and more imaginative than most. He is an intellectual giant of our times." Former President of India, Giani Zail Singh, stated "P. R. Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India." Leonardo Boff stated: "The Indian master P. R. Sarkar, who did more than thirty years of studies and practical concrete work with the poor of India, is very important for all who yearn for a liberation which starts from economics and opens to a totality of personal and social human existence." I could list other testimonials, but I believe the point is made. The nominator was only expressing a gratuitous opinion.
...and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study.	From all of the discussion in this debate, I think it is clear that (1) there has been a lot more academic study of Sarkar's works than the nominator acknowledges (2) that there may be reasons other than the nominator's opinion that Sarkar was just a "minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements" that might have impacted the amount of "academic study" that has been carried out to date.

--Abhidevananda (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few final words regarding consensus: This AfD debate has been going on for 16 days now. During the course of this lengthy debate, only three persons have modified their position. One of those three is the nominator himself. His vote changed four times: Redirect (assuming that is a valid initial vote by a nominator for deletion) → Unacceptable compromise → Keep → Not yet speedy keep but close → Firm delete. Other than the nominator, the only other two persons to change their position were Tito Dutta and Jujutacular. In both of those cases, the change was in favor of 'keep'. In light of this fact - and keeping in mind the likely predisposition of some voters here (whether pro or con) - it seems that a clear consensus by impartial editors has been expressed, and that consensus is for 'keep'. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not move my comments into other sections (per WP:TPO). A summary was a reasonable idea, but as you're doing industrial-scale WP:IDHT instead, I'm going to reply here.

Well, some of this is wrong and the rest of it is misleading, and all of it has been discussed before. To point out just one example: "a collection of songs that some experts consider to have established a new genre of music". What experts? Where did these experts publish their opinions? I certainly remember seeing this claim in multiple newspaper puff pieces, but there have been zero citations to independent experts discussing this work at that level of detail. (That would establish notability, btw.)

So what we have here is the Sarkar version of the Gish Gallop. Yes, it's possible to go through and point out every error in the above (again). Writing that would not be a good use of my time and reading it would not be a good use of the admin's time. Instead, I'll just point out that notability can be established with a single cite, and if you need more than three then you probably don't have a notable topic. At this point, you're relying on a non-independent performances and recordings of non-notable songs to establish the notability of a collection of several thousand additional songs, most of which have never been performed. And that's why you need ~~two~~[three!] table's worth of citations. Pick any three citations and it's trivial to take apart the argument. Add another thirty and it certainly looks impressive, even though the thirty have the same flaws that impeached the first three.

But perhaps that's a way forward. Instead of ~~two~~ [now three!] tables, give me your best three cites and why they establish notability. I've shown I'm willing to change my mind, and I'm still willing to change my mind. Ananda Marga-sponsored publications are right out, of course, as are Ananda Marga-sponsored performances and recordings (and yes I mean RAWA). Masters dissertations are out, of course, as are Ananda Marga press releases. I believe that leaves you with a handful of newspaper puff pieces. So pick your three best and let's see what kind of argument you can make from quality rather than quantity. Garamond Lethe 08:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Restored to intended section. Garamond Lethe 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep: the sources on the article are more than enough.--Anta An (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:26, 13 February 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. Der yck C. 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banc de Binary[edit]

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

Minor firm of no particular notability; appears on various dodgy lists, but even there seems to fail notability, since those do not constitute the requisite substantial coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites given in the article are mostly primary or to financial blogs and review/sales sites of unknown independence or dependability. Coverage from reliable sources is faint. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree those are reliable resources from the finance world.in addition they received the world finance 100 awards. i added more references Reuvengrish (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is doubtful at best. Roger (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note a related article about the founder of this company, Oren Laurent, is also up for deletion. Roger (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this article as well as improving the article about the founder of the company. I believe the company to be notable as it is the only binary option platform that is regulated. In addition, it has won the World Finance 100 Award and was recognized as the Best Trading Platform by World Finance. There are additional references about the company on the founder's article as well (MSN.com Arabia, World Finance, and the Financial Times). Thank you for the consideration given. --WEP2013 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)— WEP2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KeepThe definition of the word 'notability' is 'the state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice'. Banc De Binary is worthy of notice because it is the first dedicated binary options trading company to be granted a license in the European Union. This industry is only three or four years old, and is the rising star of financial markets. The fact that Banc De Binary is one of the first binary options brokers to get a license in the industry makes it worthy of an article in Wikipedia. This article should not be deleted, because it is an historic event in the binary options industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordwriter (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Recordwriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The Wikipedia use of "notable" is that the subject has been covered in a significant manner in content published by third party reliable sources. You examples are therefor not relevant to this discussion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References - I also listed these on the page discussion Oren Laurent, but feel that they are also applicable here. "I found additional references about Mr. Laurent. They are from the Independent,[49] the Telegraph,[50] and Investment Week.[51] It appears that the articles are all related to the same information and quote Mr. Laurent; however, they are three different stories published in 3 notable publications." Also, I cleaned up the "Regulation" section as I have to admit that I did not phrase it accurately when I created the article. They are not the 1st to be regulated, they are the 2nd. They are however the first stand alone binary option dealer to be licensed. I was able to obtain this from an article recently posted on Forex Magnates.[52] --WEP2013 (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — WEP2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not "about" Laurent; rather, it's the same brief sound bite by Laurent, about undervalued British shares.
Thank you for providing the latest press release from Forex Magnates. It's...interesting. It almost seems as though they are shaping their marketing language in response to the debate here and on their WP article: "...the first standalone binary options broker to receive CySec regulation and follows provider Spot Option that was granted a license in 2012." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell by your condescending tone that I have either done something wrong or upset you in some way. If I have, I apologize. I am only trying to establish why I believe the topic is notable. I have also found additional references that contain interviews that Mr. Laurent has given. I will also include these on the deletion discussion page of his article. Again, I apologize for offending you in any way. [53], [54], [55]. --WEP2013 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — WEP2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

European CEO Cover - I have copied this over from the deletion discussion on Mr. Laurent's page. I believe that it is appliable to this article as well. "He is featured in the Spring 2013 edition of European CEO. You can see the cover here (http://www.europeanceo.com/magazine/) or you can read the entire article here (http://www.europeanceo.com/business-and-management/2013/01/the-next-generation-of-financier/). I will add this to the discussion at Banc de Binary as well. I did not want to put the citation into the article as of yet so that anyone wishing can comment first. I see that there are a lot of references in the article marked as unreliable and believe that this one could replace those altogether."--WEP2013 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — WEP2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: European CEO cover. Yet another shameless promotional placement in an unreliable source. I encourage everyone to read the piece and decide for themselves whether it's hard-hitting journalism or heavy-handed marketing. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how many people commenting on this discussion have a conflict of interest within the terms of the wikipedia policy, I really feel in the interests of openness that this should be declared? This company has been heavily marketed since its launch and it does seem to be happening here too.---- _nonsense ferret 02:35, 30 January 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, LlamaAl (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Available sources are mostly PR, primary sources and various business listings. Fails WP:ORG. - Mr X 05:38, 6 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud marketing[edit]

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

The first sentence in the article gives the reason for deletion--it is supposed to mean internet marketing in all its aspects, which is nonsense, the internet includes more than clouds. There's nothing to merge, because everything is covered in other articles, and there's no need for a redirect, because it is not a suitable synonym for anything. Probably material could be found using the phrase, but it doesn't describe anything real; we're not a directory of attempted coinages for computer-related subjects. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to be original research, non-notable and possibly an article that someone could later add some spam links to. Lately, it seems like there are quite a few new cloud something articles that suddenly appear out of thin air. - Mr X 03:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we're on another wave like the trend to label a product or service as "2.0". Unreferenced article about a not-so-notable concept on the coat-tails of one that is. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research musing about Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine Marketing, and other such unfruitful works of darkness. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 6 February 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) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Berman[edit]

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

Search on Google News found several other people with the same name. "Andy Berman" + "Psych" turned up only name-drops (e.g. "Saladin K. Patterson and Andy Berman are co-executive producers and writers"), and nothing of substance — no significant coverage whatsoever, no biographical information. Searching for "Andy Berman" + "Invader Zim" gave only one result. Similar searches on Google Books gave only books that reprint Wikipedia articles, one name-drop in connection to Psych, and a bunch of false positives.

The only source in the article was an Invader Zim wiki, which is not a reliable source. Although at first glance he seems to pass WP:NACTOR by having two significant roles (voice actor and writer), they are less important than they appear. Although he did voice a semi-important character in a cartoon, it was one that barely lasted past its first season — and as someone who knows a thing or two about Invader Zim, the title character and GIR are far more popular than Dib. Although he did write 20 episodes of Psych (out of a possible 95 so far), no one seems to have paid him any attention for it — none of his episodes won awards, nor do they seem notable enough for their own pages. Although he did write for Freddie, he wrote only three episodes, and two were co-writes. All of his other roles are limited to one episode, or background characters without names. The utter lack of reliable sources for him makes it pretty clear that he does not meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page was deleted via AFD in 2009, re-deleted via G4 in 2010, and re-created in October 2012. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found several sources (major newspapers and books) which mention him in various roles, but the keyword is mention, and little more. The subject seems to fail WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 03:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be just a tad more to find when looking under his credited names for his earlier acting work (The "Andy Berman" usage is more recent). Sure, just as with many actors, he has had a number of one-ofs in notable projects, but his roles as significant characters in multiple episodes of notable projects (IE: as Chuck Coleman in 19 episodes of The Wonder Years, as Dennis in 9 episodes of The Jamie Foxx Show, and yes... as Dib in 27 episodes of Invader Zim) seems to meet the requirements of WP:ENT. Add to this the verifiability of his writing and producing notable projects having him also meet WP:CREATIVE. We do not judge a person by the least, but by the overall body of work. CREATIVE and ENT are met even if GNG is weak. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that WP:GNG would supercede WP:CREATIVE, not the other way around. And so far, I see nothing of him meeting WP:GNG. Every source I found is just a name-drop that says nothing about him. Even the five hits for "Andrew Mark Berman" only say "Character X, played by Andrew Mark Berman…" and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your perspective, but WP:Notability specifically instructs "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject" and "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," (IE: a box of links to various Subject-specific guidelines) indicating that a topic might be considered notable, even failing the GNG, if it otherwise meets the criteria outlined in one of the more "subject specific guidelines"... such as the "subject-specific" criteria set in the various sub-sections of WP:BIO... as those SNGs allow a reasonable presumption that verfying sources likley exist. Sure... the GNG is the easier way, but it is not the only method. The SNG's are set in place to provide alternative methods for editors to determine whether of not a topic might still be notable enough for inclusion even when the GNG is not met... else there would be no reason to have any of the many SNGs in the first place. Notability is not a contest to see which topic is more popular in press. While the verification of any assertion in a reliable source is always mandated, per guideline notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic, nor that it be immediately available online. WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not mutually exclusive. Meeting one OR the other might be enough to allow consideration of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But do you think it's really helpful when article contains literally no biographical info on him, just that he was in X, Y, and Z? There's nothing on the guy. Just what he was in. And notability is not inherited from being in a certain work. I can't verify outside IMDb that he's a Chicagoan, even. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion of accepting the essay WP:NOT INHERITED as an exclusionary rule when even that essay supports guideline specifically telling us that involvement in a notable project can indeed impart a notability. Berman was a major character in enough projects, perhaps first remembered as Kevin's buddy in 19 episodes of The Wonder Years. We have enough notability to allow a stub, even if meager. An actor's full and complete personal background is a goal, but as many individuals (through their parents when they are minors) actually protect themselves from paparazzo incursion, it not a mandate. If all we can speak of about a private person is their career, then that is okay. I have not myself done anything more than cursory digging, but will see what I can find later today. Pardon, but I am off to shoot a scene in a project and will be away for several hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The nominator's too-often-repeated claim that persons involved in the creative arts do not "inherit" or derive notability from notable work they are involved in is disruptive nonsense, contradicted by the text of the essay they and by multiple provisions of the notability guidelines that apply. In fact, it's contradicted by his own userpage, where he states that "just about anyone who's ever had a Top 40 country hit" should have an article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way to put words in my mouth. "Just about" does not mean that I think all should have an article — some people slipped through the cracks. And again, why is everyone dodging the WP:SIGCOV issue? Where's the coverage of him? Where's anything on him that states any more than that he exists? WP:NACTOR is not set in stone, people. Use some damn common sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think you should let this one go, Mr. Hammer. Sourcing is piss-poor but there's a big enough web footprint to indicate sources are out there. Sufficient appearances on The Wonder Years for an article in our pop culture compendium... I actually found a nice piece on his sister that mentions him in passing and have run an interview into the external links. Very weak notability pass. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote I just ran into that explains my thinking here: "People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something." —DGG, WP User Page. Sometimes ya gotta just grit your teeth and wait for sourcing to trickle in from the wilderness... This guy's an actor and a producer, stuff's around. Carrite (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it's okay to ignore WP:RS outright, particularly on BLPs? Then I'll gladly insert into the article that he actually has tentacles growing out of his back and can speak 14 languages, and shoot lasers out of his eyes. And I'll wait until sources trickle in confirming it because hell, who's gonna know it's wrong? We can just screw that whole sourcing thing outright. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon TPH... but no one here seems to be at all suggesting at that proper verifiablity in reliable sources be ignored. The arguments seem to be more in line with assertions of notability allowed under various SNGs can at least themselves be verified in reliable sources.[56] [57][58][59] IE: he is not notable for being "covered", he is notable for works as verifiable in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Carrite and others, above. There's enough work, and enough coverage of that work, to indicate some notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If Wikisource wants the material it is available at the link Mkdw pointed out. As the entire content is public domain I cannot see that GFDL or CC licenses and history preservation are all that relevant, but any admin may undelete the page for purposes of transwiki if needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Technical Note No. 1629[edit]

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

No evidence of notability under any criteria that I can locate, and no sources at all. Coretheapple (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiSource. There is a source in the article, right at the bottom; however this verbatim transcript of a public domain document is not an encyclopedic topic. It would, however, be ideal for WikiSource. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - I agree with Bushranger.--Staberinde (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly fine with me too. Coretheapple (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki... maybe. This should have been speedily deleted as copyvio of http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA381475. It's a wholesale copy of that source. Mkdw^talk 22:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a public domain document and isn't copyrighted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:not for source texts. As to transwiki, is Wikisource really interested in reproducing a random piece of technobabble from the 1940s, of no apparent importance of any kind? If you think so, go ahead and do it, but don't expect others to do the work. Sandstein 21:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I withdraw what I said above. Coretheapple (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand. WP:SNOW, before the seven day mark. There is a well established guideline at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which states that elementary schools are generally redirected into their respective school district because they are non-notable, and in this case, there is already a consensus to do so. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 17:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nayland Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. One sentence article, with ibox. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. gadfium 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stoke, New Zealand.-gadfium 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Another possible target is List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoke, New Zealand would seem more appropriate to me than the long list of schools in Nelson. Schwede 66 09:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Nelson, New Zealand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoke, New Zealand as it is more logical geographically than Nelson. NealeFamily (talk) 03:36, 8 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Percy Evans[edit]

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

This article has been tagged with the issue of notability since July 2009. It does not appear to meet notability guidelines for creative professionals. iComputer SaysNo 13:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is the real concern on this article, I don't think any reliable source may sustain the maintenance of this article on WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm still undecided on this one. I should note that doing a "Google test" is unlikely to be accurate with this particular individual because he isn't a contemporary architect and most of his work was done nearly a hundred years ago. I've seen some blogs and what I'd call "semi-reliable" sources (certainly would be in dispute as reliable sources) that seem to indicate there might be some much more appropriate sources found elsewhere such as architectural journals or some architectural historians who might have made comments about this architect.... but those articles are not found on line. There is a house which was designed by him near where I live which is on the National Register of Historic Places, at least according to a plaque on the outside of that house. While again not a reliable source in and of itself, it indicates there may be some real notability here. I wouldn't completely write this guy off as non-notable without some real investigation first. Architecture is not something I'm very familiar with, so I'll defer to others with expert knowledge of this particular topic. --Robert Horning (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If worse, comes to worse, the article can be redirected to that place. What is its name?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article for which you are suggesting it should be redirected to has not been written yet. I would think that most things on that register is likely notable and and of itself, but my greater point here is that just because you can't find find information about a topic on the internet does not make it non-notable thus ineligible for inclusion into Wikipedia. The current sources for this particular article came from a collection at the University of Utah, who felt that the work of this architect was notable enough for them to take this architect's work and notes and include them in its "Special Collections" archive. Typically a university doesn't do that for every citizen in their state or for even every alumni, so that does indicate at least some other level of notability. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've had a bit of a look and have managed to come up with a few things - likely the same "half-sources" referred to above:

Building Taliesin: Frank Lloyd Wright's Home of Love and Loss by Ron McCrea (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2012) - includes a couple of mentions and a couple of photos. Probably not "significant coverage" but enough to suggest, as far as I'm concerned, that he had a longer-term historical impact.

Clifford Percy Evans papers - the ones referred to above.

Ashton, Evans, and Brazier architectural blueprints - the biographical note refers to the Evans in question (brother of the Evans cited in those papers) as "prominent Utah architect Clifford Evans". That would certainly suggest, at least, local notability in his own time.

Gilmer Park Historic District - I'm not really sure what this is or whether it would be considered a reliable source but it mentions the subject a number of times in a number of contexts.

LDS Architecture - obviously a blog, so reliability is questionable, but it does mention him a whole lot, in relation to the LDS building he helped to build.

National Register of Historic Places - Belvedere Apartments - about an NRHP building co-designed by the subject. This would seem to be one of a number of NRHP-listed buildings designed by the subject.

Mormon Americana: a guide to sources and collections in the United States by David J. Whittaker (BYU Studies, 1995) - looks to be a self-published book or academic paper, but it does discuss (in passing) his work and later efforts by the U of U to preserve document collections, seemingly including the one above.

I suppose my take on it is that we're talking about someone who has had some coverage, whose contribution has been considered significant enough for a collection of his papers to be maintained by a university library and who has, from what I can tell, a number of his "works" listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm inclined to think such a person might pass criteria number 2 of WP:ANYBIO. Stalwart111 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to excellent research on notability by Stalwart111. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep. I've gone through and added two facts and references that I think prove notability. He designed 150 LDS church buildings, and was one of only two apprentices to Wright in Utah, the other being his future business partner, Woolley, who has an article. I think this is an easy keep. Cdtew (talk) 04:02, 6 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Dysfunkshunal[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ. No reliable sources. Orphaned for about 18 months. RNealK (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As RNeal said, there are no reliable sources; and I can't think of any thing that would make him notable. LM103 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 08:26, 12 February 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. Meets WP:MUSICBIO, notability demonstrated by reliable sources. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Bridger[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:MUSICBIO Thegoosler (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough for keep. That could change in years to come, but is not the case now. Kierzek (talk) 02:59, 29 January 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 January 21. Snotbot t • c » 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article clearly meets the first criterion of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians; Bridger "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Passing one of the criteria is all that is necessary to demonstrate notability. Neelix (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Neelix, I think the sourcing here is sufficient, in particular with the 2007 article in The Pilot. As an additional note, this singer was twice-nominated for Inspirational Album of the Year at the Covenant Awards. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rs coverage, supported by nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fast + Epp[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Only references provided are primary ones including a press release. And a Yahoo News article which appears to be based on a press release. Google news search on the title brings up zero hits, same with a book search. RadioFan (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Three different searches provided several results here ("Richmond Olympic Oval Fast + Epp", several news articles and only one press release though the Canadian Architect links read like PR but I can't find any evidence to support this) and here (provided some of the same results but with two different, "Forestry: Pine-beetle payback" (dead link) and "This week: Good news/Bad news" (brief mention)). One of the articles from above is this one from the UK which mentions the Richmond Olympic Oval at the second page. Through the third search which also provided some of the same results, I found this which mentions the awards. I also found another news article here which also mentions the 2009 award. I found this which mentions the Richmond Olympic Oval and lists them as a consultant. Finally, I found this which briefly mentions them. I know it seems they haven't received much attention recently but could they be notable for all of this especially for recognition from the Institution of Structural Engineers? If so, I vote keep. This supports one of their recent projects, VanDusen Botanical Gardens. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Each of the articles on the oval are on the oval and mention this company only in passing. The articles concerning the awards are of unclear notability.--RadioFan (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Several websites have information on this company like those that are listed on the references page; however this article just needs more information and some more research on. If this company exists, as it obviously does, I think it only needs more research. I vote keep it. JoJaEpp (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There must be sources isn't the best justification for keeping an article. Either it does or it doesn't. This AFD has been extended twice. If sufficient references cant be located, it should be deleted. MBisanz, if you feel strongly that you can find resources, at some other time, the other option is to WP:Userfy the article under your care so that you may have sufficient time to find references.--RadioFan (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a local engineering firm. Given their proliferation, trade awards don't really count much for notability, and the rest seems to be obvious PR insertions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:21, 6 February 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. Reliable sources have been provided (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Rich[edit]

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

From what I can tell from the website given this looks like an enthusiast who has built a telescope out of their garage. Reliable third party sources are required to establish notability, and they are not present in the article. The article also appears to be an autobiography. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 08:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appears to have been featured in a local paper[60] and mentioned in several local publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider Astronomy magazine a reliable source. The amount of his discoveries (22!) also mean this is not just some guy with a telescope. --Auric talk 16:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RS added since nom. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 16:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. We have one in-depth story reliably covering the subject, but only in a local newspaper (the Bangor Daily News piece). The other sources either have no in-depth coverage of the subject (the IAU supernova list) or are not sources about the subject at all (two publications by the subject). I don't think that's quite enough for WP:GNG. But I'd be willing to change my mind if we could find a couple more sources of similar quality to the one we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an article in Newsday, which isn't local. Here's coverage by the Associated Press. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources I've found:
1. Bangor Daily News - Jan 28, 2005 article
2. Sun Journal (newspaper article) - Jan 27, 2003
3. the Sun story was picked up by the Associated Press and reported at seacoastonline.com
4. Bangor Daily News - Jan 24, 2003
5. Looks like he is in a Newsday.com (New York) article but it is behind a paywall, so I cannot confirm in-depth

So we have multiple articles over a couple of years in local newspapers, one story that went national (AP), and a peer-reviewed article previously mentioned (Astronomy magazine). Is this enough for notability? I would recommend marginal keep, but I have no experience in judging biographies. --Mark viking (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Neohumanism. This is a long-winded debate, and closure is far overdue. Having gone through the discussion, I find that the delete side have made a good argument against the notability of the book when they point out that the book itself has not been the subject of many reviews. While the philosophical ideas in the book have been deemed notable enough for the article on neohumanism, it is well-established Wikipedia practice that the notability of one topic does not automatically make related topics notable (often shortened to "notability is not inherited"). As such, the rationale that "neohumanism is rated mid-importance, therefore this book that introduced neohumanism must be notable too" is fallacious. There have been numerous assertions in the discussion that the book is notable or important, but very little evidence of the sources needed to pass the notability guidelines. All the arguments of notability support the non-controversial viewpoint that the theory is notable.

I will again ask that people participating in AFDs avoid prefacing their comments with "Note to closing admin" because everything in the AFD debate is a note to the closing admin. There is no need to highlight your note in particular. In this case the AFD debate contained a long argument against the deletion process, calling it "censorship". To this I will answer that arguing that topics are non-notable is not censorship, and regarding the other points in that comment I refer to the section of the ATA essay WP:EVERYTHING.

However, there is not all that much support for outright deletion either, and at least two of the participants who advocated deletion have alternatively called a redirect and/or a merge as an option. Other editors have supported merging as well. They argue that the book is mentioned in the neohumanism article, and that is a meritorious enough argument.

The current article contains an infobox while most of the body text is a listing of the chapters. I cannot really see much here worth merging, and will therefore simply make this a redirect, but the article history will not be deleted so people can merge parts of the content as they see fit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism[edit]

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

Yet another self-published book by the prolific Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. No discussion of the book in the peer-reviewed literature (and only quoted four times), no reviews, and no notability. As I mentioned in another AfD, while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. Garamond Lethe 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom.

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Sarkar; still short of notability. It's impossible to develop neutral non-fringey content without sufficient coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Neohumanism - no need for a separate article, but could be covered there. Robofish (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't believe that there is anything unusual or problematic in having a separate Wikipedia article about the landmark book for a new philosophical theory that has been rated as "Mid-importance" on the Philosophy portal project's importance scale. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism has not been rated as mid-importance on the Philosophy portal project's importance scale. It has not been rated as anything. Are you thinking of a different article? Notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was speaking English. I haven't yet figured out what language Bob Rayner speaks. Let me know, Bob, and I will try to translate for you. And, by the way, Bob, the book that sets out for the first time a new and notable philosophy is hardly an apt example of inheritance. But, hey, even if this were an apt example of inheritance, had you actually read the very reference that you dogmatically asserted as support for your position, you would have seen the following statement: "Three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." So there is no rule on Wikipedia that absolutely rules out notability based on inheritance as you perhaps wrongly imagine. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Landmark books" get reviewed. This didn't. If you dig up a review in an independent, reliable source I'll cheerfully withdraw the nomination for deletion. Garamond Lethe 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond, I would agree that landmark books do generally get reviewed... at least in some form or another. And, in this respect, "Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is no exception. But where I disagree is with your unfounded segue from landmark books getting reviewed to the assumption that only a review by an "independent source" (whatever that subjective concept means) is a valid review to establish a "landmark" quality. It would be naive to assume that reviews of books published and sold in-house (as is the policy for all of Sarkar's books) will be as common or as seemingly "independent" as reviews of books published through commercial publishing houses. So, for example, we read Dr. Marcus Bussey writing on Page iv of the introduction to Neohumanist Educational Futures: "As Sohail Inayatullah has acknowledged the sources and inspiration for this book, I would like to offer three credits of a different nature. The first is to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar (1921-1990) who first developed the idea of neohumanism articulated in this text. His first discourses on neohumanism as a general reframing of the social were given in 1982..." Those 1982 discourses that Dr. Bussey refers to were published as the book, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Are Marcus Bussey and Sohail Inayatullah reliable sources by Wikipedia standards? Absolutely. Does Marcus Bussey confirm that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is a landmark book? Clearly, he does. So then all we have to worry about are the trifling questions as to whether Bussey's remarks constitute a "book review" and whether he is "independent". I submit that those are not critical issues under the aforementioned circumstances. But, given our earlier communication, I do not expect that you will concede this point... or, indeed, any point that I have made. Should that be so, let the record reflect that between us there is no consensus.--Abhidevananda (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An allusion to an unnamed book in a single paragraph of the acknowledgements section isn't a review of that unnamed book. As an aside, ~~the book~~[The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism] isn't listed in worldcat, either. Garamond Lethe 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp: "the book isn't listed in worldcat". Then maybe the book that everyone is talking about here doesn't even exist! To be serious for just a single sentence, this type of remark by you, Garamond, tends to expose the absurdity of a one-eyed over-reliance on secondary sources by Wikipedia (or by some Wikipedians). In any event - and returning to my usual, more lighthearted demeanor - Garamond, will you ever grasp the message about spelling that I tried to convey to you at another one of your frivolous AfD nominations, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prabhat_Samgiita? Have a look here on WorldCat. Hmmm... I think I'm starting to understand the real reason why your four academic papers, mentioned at yet another one of your frivolous AfD nominations here, were not deemed notable by Wikipedia. You might be a secondary source. At a stretch, you might even be considered independent. But your words are really not very reliable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see The liberation of intellect--neo-humanism (1999) by "Ānandamūrti". Is that Shrii Shrii Anandamurti? Ah, yes it is. Nice catch! Garamond Lethe 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "catch", Garamond. And I suspect that you already knew what I have pointed out, because even before I could post my response you had struck out "the book" and replaced those words with a specific name of the book in quotation marks. Regrettably, as stated in my latest comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prabhat_Samgiita, it is getting very hard for me to maintain the assumption that your words and actions are in good faith. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that all articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users with various excuses seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP are not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in spreading the totality of human knowledge, if by that you mean "everything that anybody thinks they know", but it aims to providing reliable and encyclopedic information. If Sarkar's books are not discussed by other authors in reliable sources then how can we spread reliable information about them? How can we know whether the books are true, or nonsense? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colapeninsula. Yes, it is true that according WP guideline and in order to make WP a more reliable encyclopaedia, we need to use reliable sources and provide encyclopaedic information. However, it's not so true that Sarkar's books are not discussed by other authors in reliable sources. Yet many off them are offline and non-English sources as Sarkar happens to be an Indian and happens to have originally published his books in non-English languages such as Bengali and Hindi. We should not let systemic bias to come in the way of our better judgement. Google hit counts are not always so reliable to establish notability. And we should not let a bunch of old editors systematically target and try to delete or undermine a bunch of articles, just because they happen to be related to an ideology or religion, that they do not like; especially if those articles were so recently created in good faith by newbies that don't know the rules much. They could be tagged for citations, notability etc and those who made the deletion requests could have tried to better the article themselves or try to explain those willing how to do it. If still, after sometime there was no betterment in notability and better sourcing, neutral language etc. they could be tagged for deletion, but not 8 of them at the same time! And they should not have done propaganda here and there, this and that noticeboard to canvass more people to vote. These are not good faith edits and this is part collaborative effort to destroy all articles related to the ideology of Sarkar, done by gaming the system. This kind of stuff, simply should not happen in Wikipedia. More experienced people should not game the system, against newbies who, naturally, make mistakes, that could be corrected. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to have a conversation about this? Garamond Lethe 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a clear non-notable subject, the arguments that are provided in favour of keeping don't seem to be based on WP:NBOOK, as there is no substantial independent reliable coverage to be found, or referred to, anywhere I've been totally convinced by Abhidevananda and his helpful reference to another encyclopedia that we should accord the same treatment and Merge to neohumanism - this would be consistent with the specialist encyclopedia, perfect solution ---- _nonsense ferret 21:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) Regarding the notability of the subject matter of this book, as I mentioned in my Keep vote, it has been assigned Mid-importance on the Philosophy portal's importance scale. So, clearly, someone considers the subject to be notable. (2) Regarding "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", it is the foundation of Sarkar's philosophy, neohumanism. As such this book has clearly made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement (per WP:NB). (3) This book is mentioned in at least two third-party, independent reviews by Helen Crovetto. In her chapter of James R. Lewis's "Violence and New Religious Movements" (2011, Oxford University Press), Crovetto writes: "In The Liberation of Intellect: Neo-Humanism (1983), Sarkar did not limit himself to humanistic concerns and defended the developmental rights of animals, plants, and even allegedly nonsentient entities such as rocks. Likewise, Ananda Margiis consider themselves to be broad-minded universalists." With this one statement, she both discusses this book and implies that this book has made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement (again, per WP:NB). Furthermore, Helen Crovetto also wrote a separate article dedicated specifically to Sarkar's neohumanism. That article is: Crovetto, Helen. 2005. "Ananda Marga’s Tantric Neo-humanism", published as pages 47-49 of the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature", ed. Bron Taylor, New York: Continuum International. Unfortunately, I currently do not have access to the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature", but it would be virtually impossible to write a two-page treatment of Sarkar's neohumanism in a scholarly publication without referencing the book under discussion here, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Anyone here with access to the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" may kindly confirm this point if they have any doubt about it. So I think that notability of this book is well-established by any standards, including even the strictest interpretation of Wikipedia standards. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a better google search for the section on neohumanism in the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature". By good fortune, this time I was successful (see here). As expected, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is prominently mentioned. It comes up in the second sentence of Crovetto's remarks. I quote: "Ananda Marga is a contemporary Hindu Tantric sect with an international following of several million people. Their animal- and plant-rights philosophy, called Neo-Humanism, is based on a book of the same name written by P. R. Sarkar (1921–1990)." So, once again, it is my contention that this book fully meets the notability requirements of WP:NB and that the AfD on this book should be roundly rejected. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are quite right, that sounds like a great argument for giving the book the same treatment in this encyclopedia - so we should give it a mention in an article about neohumanism and no need to have an article of its own - exactly like that encyclopedia - seems like a reasonable solution to me ---- _nonsense ferret 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NF, Thank you for acknowledging notability here and adjusting your vote. However, I don't believe that you make a strong case for merger. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It has 4,000,000 articles of very wide variety. The "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" is a printed book that has only 1,000 articles in particular niche. So, for example, general humanism gets various mentions in that encyclopedia, but it has no separate entry in it. Would you eliminate the Humanism article from Wikipedia on that basis? That other encyclopedia does not seem to have many separate or even semi-separate articles for books. "The Quran" is a separate article, but the "New Testament" - while set apart - is labeled as an extension of Christianity (Christianity 3). So the two encyclopedias - Wikipedia with its 4,000,000 articles and this printed encyclopedia with its 1,000 articles - are not highly comparable, and I did not intend to make any comparison. I think it would be absurd to try to restructure Wikipedia along the same, substantially different model that the other encyclopedia uses. I merely cited that other encyclopedia as proof of notability for the book (in accordance with WP:NB). Wikipedia has separate articles for books and even has guidelines on which books are deserving of such an article - guidelines which "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" now clearly satisfies. So there is no justification for merging this book article with any other article. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, compelling such a merger under these circumstances is also not supported by Wikipedia policy... especially if the main ground seems to be that the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature" does not contain a separate article for this book.

So I stand on my point that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" clearly meets the standard of notability set out in WP:NB; and, as such, the nomination for deletion of the article on the book must fail. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it amply demonstrates that if such a specialist encyclopedia cannot find the material and the notability for a separate article on this book, then a general encyclopedia like wikipedia won't either. The onus is on you to establish it is notable, and this reference to the book doesn't represent substantial coverage. Very interesting that you say that the other encyclopedia doesn't have an article on humanism - you are right to mention this as it clearly undermines the credibility of this as a source even further - well spotted. You have failed to establish that this books is notable, therefore the article must be deleted in its current form - it might be appropriate to merge into neohumanism as a source there, but certainly doesn't have notability of itself and should be deleted otherwise. From the other contributors, it seems we are developing a good consensus on this point. ---- _nonsense ferret 17:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, NF, but I don't follow your logic. I would say that if even a specialized encyclopedia found this book to be notable, then a more general encyclopedia - with 4,000 times more articles in it - should welcome an article on this book. As for consensus, it is not a mere vote count. What I see here are two distinct positions, each of them argued on the basis of policy. However, the argument against a dedicated article on this book is weaker than the argument for a dedicated article, because the former argument must establish that this book does not meet any of the five criteria of WP:NB (including #3 "a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement) and that there are no third party reviews of the book that Wikipedia deems to be independent and reliable. But I have nullified both of those arguments with the two articles that I just cited. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under a misapprehension that there is a burden of proof on those who think that the article is not notable. In fact it is for those who believe it is notable to establish this fact. You have thus far failed to put forward a convincing argument here - there has been no substantial coverage provided such as an indepth critical review of the book - I'm sure people would certainly change their minds if such coverage were to be produced as has been noted by one of the other editors above. ---- _nonsense ferret 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, NF, I am not under a misapprehension here. WP:NB clearly states: "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:...3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." I have presented two different reviews published in two different sources - entirely third-party and independent - that both indicate that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" has "made a significant contribution to a significant political or religious movement". I could go further and point out that the entire system of education for all Ananda Marga schools - from kindergarten to university - is now commonly described as neohumanist education. We are talking here about many hundreds of schools. Neohumanism is not just taught in the Ananda Marga primary and secondary schools, but is also offered as a course of study by the Philosophy Department at the Ananda Marga College. All instruction in neohumanism is based on "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", which is the primary text for that philosophy. Hence, item 4 of WP:NB is also met: "4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." I might point out here that item 4 has a footnote that reads: "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science." This footnote perfectly describes the nature of "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". Hence, in accordance with points 3 and 4 of WP:NB - two points, not just one as is all that is required - a presumption of notability has been firmly established. --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an easier argument to make if there was an article on the Ananda Marga schools with a section on their curriculum. Garamond Lethe 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some difficulty reconciling some of the things you have said - perhaps if you can provide some independent reliable sources to clarify and verify your claim this might help - now you say that "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." but on 5 November 2012 you seemed to say that neohumanism is only taught formally at the "university level" at the college Ananda Marga gurukula Talk:Neohumanism. Is there a reliable source which provides details of this course, including the accreditation, content and level of study. That you assert this may be taught in one single college (which seems to have quite a small number of students and is there specifically to promote this movement) seems a long, long way away from establishing that the book is the subject of instruction in multiple colleges/universities. Indeed I have as yet been unable to establish whether the book even meets the threshold for WP:NBOOK in terms of the number of library holdings of the book. If it turns out not to meet this, then it would be quite unsafe to try to establish a case on these guidelines. The consensus does seem to be coming together around merging to Neohumanism - now that I've researched this subject even further however, I feel that it might need to be renamed to Neohumanism (Sarkar) as the theories of Paul Kurtz could possibly be established with the greater notability, not to mention M N Roy - perhaps the most accurate is the Ananda Marga Yoga Society. Also, I think there seems to be some confusion regarding what would constitute a critical review - a mention of the book cannot really be said to be a review as far as I can see. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NF, you do see the word "formally" in the quotation from me that you quote but oddly leave out of your quotation marks? Neohumanism is a subject of instruction, but I do not claim that there is a dedicated course on that subject except at the college/university level. So my point at Talk:Neohumanism was that the subject of "Neohumanistic education" - which had been introduced by another editor as a section of the article on Neohumanism (the theory) and which talked mostly about kindergartens - might better be addressed in an article on the Ananda Marga education system. Nevertheless, I ended my comments that you have very selectively quoted with the following: "For the record, I am not necessarily opposed to a section on education in the Neohumanism article. But that section should amplify the understanding of neohumanism as a theory/philosophy and not merely promote Ananda Marga schools or particular authors as a means toward that end." I should add here that the remark you quote was about the first version of the article. That article was subsequently rewritten, and a section on Ananda Marga schools was - and currently is - included in the Neohumanism article here. As for your remark about the Ananda Marga college being "there specifically to promote this movement", that allegation is totally false. Kindly substantiate that remark or withdraw it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to Neohumanism. Fails WP:NBOOK. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. The target Neohumanism has enormous issues in that it is built on almost exclusively primary sources, but that can be dealt with separately. The arguments here are almost identical to those voiced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell and in many other recent Afds concerning articles developed by Sarkar's proponents. Location (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neohumanism and Notability of the Ananda Marga education system (often referred to as "neohumanist education"): I add here this important link (suggested by Abhidevananda in one of the several AfD proposed to delete from WP all the articles related with Shrii P.R. Sarkar and His vast production). See here. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That link gives me "Internal Server Error (500)". Anyway, the query does not mention the subject of this discussion, "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism". What are you trying to achieve? bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking 'Refresh' after you get that error. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshing it gives a list of other books covering similar titles; my concern still stands. To show that "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" is notable or important in some way, you need sources which discuss "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism", not lists of other books with similar words in their titles. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism is the book in which Sarkar sets out in detail his vision of a new humanism - a neohumanism. That same neohumanism in turn inaugurated a wave of new thinking in respect to not just education but also future studies. At least the first 12 out of the 15 scholarly articles on that page - and no telling how many articles on the succeeding pages - are inspired by and, no doubt largely based on, what Sarkar wrote in The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. Accordingly, that list of scholarly articles - flippantly dismissed by Bob Rayner as just "titles with similar names" - actually establishes the notability of The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism beyond a shadow of a doubt. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This archive contains a signed statement from Cathy Lee, Director of the Sunshine School in Laos. Her statement testifies to the fact that both "A Guide to Human Conduct" and "The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism" are core material in respect to the training of teachers and the curriculum imparted to the Sunshine School students. Over the coming days, I expect to receive more documents testifying to the same effect. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a signed statement by Mary Anne Lovage, Head Teacher of the Sunrise Nursery and Primary School in London. She talks about the international educational trust that her school is part of, and she testifies to the importance of the two books, A Guide to Human Conduct and The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism in their teacher training. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:With all the evidences above and through the points 3 and 5 of WP:Notability Books and also because it's in the curriculum of many schools from kindergarten to university degree all over the world, I say keep. --Universal Life (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a well written article of an important indian phylosopher. We can improve it without deleting it.--Anta An (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar While the information in the article has some encyclopedic value, the book is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Miniapolis 15:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The question of notability has been answered with regards to the notability of the person of P.R. Sarkar. Additionally, the book makes a significant contribution to a political/religious movement as per WP guidelines - establishment enough by Crovetto's work, and as standard curriculum for AM education. All clearly stated. Unfortunately, the systemic bias issue within WP continues to rear its ugly head. As has been noted, plans to list AfD on all things Sarkar are afoot. Hard to AGF even with a merge. --DezDeMonaaa (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The man was notable enough. We all agree about that, but his works should not be listed separately unless they are proven to be notable, too. Where are the truly independent sources in this case? I have not found them per WP criteria. I have, however, found the ubiquitous sockpuppet here. Again, a reasonable solution would be to summarise the content of this article on the main Sarkar page.--Zananiri (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summation of arguments for Keep[edit]

As demonstrated by the table below, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism greatly exceeds Wikipedia requirements for notability. Only one out of the five criteria listed at WP:NBOOK must be satisfied. The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism satisfies not just one but three of the criteria.

WP:NBOOK Criteria Satisfied by The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
Criterion	Compliance	References
3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.	As stated earlier, The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism is the landmark book that comprehensively sets out Sarkar's philosophy of neohumanism, rated by WikiProject Philosophy at "mid-importance on the project's importance scale". Naturally, this book is also referenced numerous times in the article on neohumanism. As the neohumanism of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar embodies the universal outlook to be cultivated by all members of Ananda Marga, the mission founded by Sarkar, this book has undeniably made a significant contribution to that significant religious movement.	Neohumanism, Ananda Marga, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.	As evidenced in the preceding discussion, this book is indeed the subject of instruction at multiple schools. It is the very source for the name of and philosophy behind the education system adhered to by all of the many hundreds of Ananda Marga schools around the world.	Signed statements by the in-charges of two prestigious schools, one in Laos and the other in London, as well as links to various websites connected with Neohumanist Education [61] [62] [63]. Additional evidence may be provided, but this already meets the criterion for "multiple" schools, and there does not appear to be any dispute on the number of Ananda Marga schools that maintain such a course of study.
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.	This argument was recently advanced by a Wikipedia administrator, J04n in the failed AfD nomination on Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2). Though the book was different, clearly this argument has equal impact in respect to other books. When J04n's assertion was questioned by the AfD nominator on that book as well as this book, I seconded the position of J04n with the following remarks: "I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology (Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this." I stand firmly by those remarks. In the words of J04n, "The historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable."	Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2)

--Abhidevananda (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you establish that the thresholds for using WP:NBOOK were met in terms of the number of library holdings - I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone yet? --_nonsense ferret 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Worldcat knows of only 8 libraries with a copy. Garamond Lethet c 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this is exactly the type of picayune argument that I addressed with the remark about WP:IAR. We already know about WP:BIAS, so I have to wonder how many languages did Garamond search in? For example, did he search for the Hindi title or the Bengali title? Does Worldcat have a thorough index of Hindi and Bengali libraries. And, if so, did Garamond search in those languages. And even if only 8 libraries are covered instead of 12, does the difference of 4 libraries mean that the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, would not apply? --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not complicated, surely if you have links to evidence of the necessary holdings you can just provide them here and we can get this particular aspect cleared up quickly? --_nonsense ferret 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, NF - it is not complicated. Your buddy, Garamond, has himself pointed us to a library in India that is not cataloged by WorldCat but has a copy of The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. See the section entitled Some comments below. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of arguments for delete/merge[edit]

There are a number of well rehearsed arguments that have been made here for merging or deleting the article (and can also been seen in arguments concerning other books within the "sarkarverse" such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell where a consensus was found for merging the article to neohumanism. It must be added that a consensus is not necessarily one that everyone agrees with. The arguments can be summarised as follows, no doubt I will have missed some, so please do not read this as detracting in any way from the very strong arguments that have already been made in favour of merge or delete.

In-depth coverage of the book by independent sources outside the sarkarverse is simply not found. The book is part of a closed 'sarkar-verse' within the terms of WP:FRINGE no significant coverage outside of those with a direct interest in the movement such as it is.
The argument has been presented above that the book makes "a significant contribution to a notable ... political or religious movement." and "the book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." The case for this high level of 'so historically significant' has just simply not been met by any evidence produced so far. We have statements from admitted supporters of Sarkar that he is very significant, but there is no evidence of very indepth coverage from totally independent sources outside of the "sarkar-verse" to attest to this.
No independent evidence in reliable sources has been provided that this book is the subject of instruction in any university or school. Very specifically it is stated that lessons at a very small number of schools follow neohumanist principles, but this is very far from establishing that the book is actually used as the subject of study. There is a small Ananda Marga degree college (which is affiliated to a local University) and it is said that there is a specific course in neohumanism available there - no evidence of this has yet been provided, but it is submitted that even if this were true, as a college within the sarkarverse, it clearly does not meet the general acceptance within "academia" as a subject fit for study which is what the priniple of WP:NBOOK is establishing.
The argument is made above that " We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature"". This argument involves a number of points which are used time and time again to try to avoid the deletion of articles on subjects which are not notable. These are in fact recognised fallacies. WP:USEFUL The argument that WP has plenty of space for articles -"we are not killing trees", and it will do harm to have this article that there is little public interest in outside the "sarkar-verse" is widely recognised as not a valid argument. This sort of fallacious reasoning could be used for keeping anything in wikipedia. WP:NOHARM "Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc." Wikipedia is not here to provide publicity for books that have not been reviewed in peer-reviewed literature, that is an erroneous conception of what Wikipedia is about - it does not exist to promote things to the wider world that are not well known outside of their own fringe universe. WP:VALINFO
There is no evidence yet provided that the book even meets the threshold library holdings required for considering WP:NBOOK as relevant. Even if this is provided, as noted above reliance on the guidelines is likely to fail, but without this evidence, arguments based on WP:NBOOK should not even be entertained.
The main supporter of keeping this article "as someone who frequently gives lectures on the subject of neohumanism" would of course greatly wish it to be kept, why the issue of this apparent conflict of interest within the terms of WP:COI isn't mentioned more surprises me greatly, but this is a side issue and shouldn't detract from the fact that the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits.--_nonsense ferret 13:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal[edit]

In a lengthy statement, NF only managed to address one of the three criteria for notability that I put forward - Criterion 5 (historical significance of the author) of WP:NBOOK. Naturally, here a subjective evaluation is required, and so perhaps this is the easiest of the three arguments to dispute. However, I would refute NF's claim that this argument (Criterion 5) is made only by "admitted supporters of Sarkar". I pointed everyone to an AfD debate where this argument was put forward by a Wikipedia administrator, who absolutely is not - to the best of my knowledge - an "admitted supporter of Sarkar". I have not seen any evidence that J04n has ever done any editorial work on a Sarkar-related article in Wikipedia, and I have no reason to believe that he is a member of Ananda Marga.

NF mentions Criterion 3 (significant contribution to a significant religious movement), but NF merely lumps Criterion 3 together with Criterion 5 and then only argues against Criterion 5. NF says nothing at all to counter Criterion 3. The fact is that - even though there is also a subjective element to Criterion 3 - the evidence for Criterion 3 is nevertheless overwhelming.

Regarding Criterion 4 (subject of instruction at multiple schools), we don't need to consider any subjective elements. This book definitely satisfies that criterion on objective grounds. Presumably, that is why NF completely ignored this criterion (and presumably that is why another critic, CP, added stringency to the criterion that is in no way found at WP:NBOOK).

As to the rest of NF's arguments - threshold levels, etc. - has NF or Garamond searched the records of the National Library of India, and, if so, did they search in all of the various languages of India? Presumably not. Furthermore, the threshold standards that NF asserts are also just guidelines. WP:NBOOK clearly states: "There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but they will be rare and good reasons for the notability of such books should be made very clear." That is exactly what has been done in the table above.

Given the fact that NF did not so much as address two out of three of the main arguments put forward for keeping this article (Criterion 3 and Criterion 4 at WP:NBOOK), NF's final claim that "the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits" is entirely unsubstantiated. Rather, it is just empty rhetoric. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on rebuttal[edit]

That further statement really fails to be worth of the name rebuttal, and I'm happy for people to judge the arguments made and summarised on their own merits. No new evidence was, or should have been introduced by the summaries above, it is not the point of summaries just to try and grab a grandstanding opportunity to have the last word, and if there is a place for rebuttals it should clearly be next to the original arguments. I'm happy that any independent commentators will judge these arguments fairly, and am quite well aware that nobody will convince someone that has a clear WP:COI which is precisely one of the reasons why they are discouraged from contributing to articles on subjects where there is a conflict.--_nonsense ferret 16:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NF, I did not realize that you had somehow become the official or the dominant spokesperson for Garamond Lethe's AfD nomination. Pray tell, how did that happen, and how was I to know that this is the case? But if that were so, and we were going to adhere to formalities, then why did you and Garamond add comments under my summation, thereby setting the example that I merely followed? Why did you censure me on this matter and not also Garamond - and indeed yourself - for the same and prior conduct? And why must I suffer repeated personal attacks from you at this stage of our debate? COI, grandstanding, wanting the last word? A bit more civility and assumption of good faith would be appreciated here. Finally, if we were going by formalities, then certainly you should have presented your summation before mine. Typically, at the close of a debate, the person or team affirming the motion (in this case, a nomination for deletion) would speak first. The person or team negating the motion would speak last. But, anyway, my remarks had nothing to do with grandstanding, having the last word, or any kind of formality. I merely asserted my right to point out that your "summary of arguments" failed to address 2 out of 3 of my main points - 2 out of 3 of the criteria of WP:NBOOK that I had cited - and yet you asserted that "the arguments made for keeping this article fail completely on their own merits". Neither you nor anyone else supporting this AfD motion have presented adequate arguments to make such a grandiose claim. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If you can't pound the facts, pound the law. If you can't pound the law, pound the facts. If you can't pound either, pound the table." Garamond Lethet c 20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen. ('Where they start burning books, they will end in burning human beings.) — Heinrich Heine, from his play Almansor (1821)" DezDeMonaaa (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be on to something there. Do you know of anyone who has tried to ban (or burn) this book? That would be a strong indication for notability. I've not seen anything to that effect, which leads me to believe that no one cares enough about this book to try to suppress it. (Please don't try to make an argument that removing articles dedicated to self-published, non-notable books is suppression. You may do what you like with your own printing press, but that does not mean you can do what you like with printing presses that don't belong to you.) Garamond Lethet c 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously, Garamond, you miss the point. There is no printing press. Expansion of articles is necessary for the health of WP regardless of the subject matter, or the relative obscurity of any given topic. Notability has been established and continues to be established. Information is what is important for the masses. Let them decide what they choose to inform themselves about in the manner in which they choose. I am not accusing you of censorship, only of being a bit small minded with regards to the role of WP (not the subject matter at hand - though you may be about that as well. :)) You yourself said you weren't notable enough for WP despite having been published, etc. Well why the hell not? Might be just the necessary medicine to relieve what sounds like a case of bitterness, huh? :) DezDeMonaaa (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the policy stands obscurity is highly relevant, see WP:EVERYTHING and WP:DUE --_nonsense ferret 18:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments[edit]

No one mentioned this, however I strongly opine that a philosophy on humanism has nothing to do WP:FRINGE. Nonsense Ferret, I do not understand how you are able to include this within Fringe. Moreover, this has already been done, citing music and art as fringe by two other editors, in the failed deletion discussion on Prabhat Samgiita.

A second comment, is that, unfortunately, I'm observing that many editors are not assuming good faith any more, thus preventing a consensus to be reached. However this should not be so surprising, given the fact that the same group of people consequently nominated 12 or more articles for deletion and voting as a block, with people that they had mostly canvassed from the fringe noticeboard.
So, anyone coming from that noticeboard. I would like to assure you with all my honesty that this is not an ordinary fringe issue. I, personally as a scientist, know well what fringe is. And that some of the articles related or linking to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar had/has some fringey-looking content is not a valid reason for us to assume immediately that anything related to Sarkar is fringe. (That would be inheritance of fringe, which after my research area that included inheritance of epigenetics, would be an interesting one to research.;) ) So, I'm asking to anyone that came from the Fringe noticeboard, to please keep an open mind. Friendly, --Universal Life (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing here that this is a fringe issue. The issue for this book is its lack of notability. Garamond Lethet c 20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garamond - more than happy for you to reword my summary above in any way you see fit, if it doesn't quite meet with your understanding of the arguments. I hoped it would be helpful to provide the summary, but very keen not to have misrepresented anyone. --_nonsense ferret 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NF: On the contrary, you've argued this better than I could have. But just for sake of clarification, I understand you to be arguing that the lack of notability is a result of Sarkar's writings being WP:FRINGE. I think UL would rather argue whether or not Sarkar's work should be considered fringe. I'll grant that point for sake of this discussion in order to keep the focus on notability: both fringe and non-fringe self-published book that have no independent review or discussion need to establish their notability some other way, and you've done an excellent job summarizing why none of the potential standards of notability have been met for this text. Garamond Lethet c 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: after reading all the arguments proposed in this AfD I am more than convinced of the notability of this fundamental book on the holistic philosophical theory elaborated by Shrii Sarkar and part of the philosophy of the Ananda Marga movement. For this reason I change my vote.--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Calcutta Philosophy Syllabus: I would assume that if anyone would know about the significance of this work it would be the professors in the philosophy department of the University of Calcutta. They have helpfully laid out the complete course of study for an undergraduate philosophy degree, complete with recommended reading. Page 29 lists the course of study for "Contemporary Indian Philosophers". There's Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore and Sri Aurobindo and of course Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The "Suggested Readings" lists 44 additional books. No book by Sarkar, including this one, makes the cut. Garamond Lethet c

01:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that Sarkar is too modern for the University of Calcutta's concept of "contemporary", which apparently only includes people who died no later than 1950 (almost 65 years ago). But then, Garamond, are you arguing that if one university does not have this book in the syllabus of its undergraduate philosophy course, then that somehow overcomes the fact that hundreds of other schools up through the tertiary level do? And why bring us a syllabus from a "state-government administered" institution, when you know full well that the organization that Sarkar founded, the organization that sells this book, has been in conflict with the state government of West Bengal up until very recently? (Only in May of 2011 did Mamata Banerjee and her All India Trinamool Congress party finally wrest power from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), long under the direct control or tutelage of Jyoti Basu.) Surely, Garamond, you know all of this politics, as even this week itself you have been engaged in edits to a minor Wikipedia article on the Bijon Setu massacre in Calcutta. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for independent, reliable sources for these hundreds of schools. A syllabus such as the one I've provided would be ideal. Garamond Lethet c 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, Garamond! Are you really questioning whether the system of education referred to as Neohumanist Education, established by the same Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar who authored this book, operates in accordance with the ideals set out in this book? Pretty soon you will have us parsing the meaning of the word "is". --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning how many schools there are, their accreditation, and whether or not the text in question is actually used. Do you have a list of Ananda Marga schools? I haven't been able to find one. Garamond Lethet c 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four questions, four answers: (1) How many schools are there? "Multiple" is what what has to be demonstrated for notability purposes, and "multiple" has been established per the two signed letters that were uploaded for inspection. (2) Are the schools accredited? Yes, per the documentation that I provided. (3) Is the text in question actually used? Though the book is not a textbook nor was it ever intended as such (per WP:NBOOK Criterion 3 footnote 5), yes, the book is used, as demonstrated by the documentation that I uploaded as well as the very name of the system of education. (4) Do I have a list of Ananda Marga schools? No, I do not. However, if you want more information about this matter, including a sampling of schools around the world, you could look here. As you seem to be an American, perhaps you might be interested in the website of the Progressive School of Long Island. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to let the notability decision rest on the above. Garamond Lethet c 14:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this book is in the library of the University of Calcutta: Leaving aside the irrelevant undergraduate syllabus from the University of Calcutta, let's have a look at the library of that same university. Interestingly, it does contain a copy of Sarkar's The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism. (Run a Boolean search with Title contains "Liberation" "Intellect" and "Humanism" here.) Could it be that WorldCat does not tabulate information from the University of Calcutta? Easy enough to check with a search here. Result: "Sorry, we could not find any libraries for 'University of Calcutta'... Only libraries that have created a profile in the WorldCat Registry are listed in the library search results." --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:44, 18 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trent Barton bus routes[edit]

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

This article has no sources other than the company website and has been tagged as unreferenced for the last year. There can be no guarantee that the information will be kept updated as changes are frequent. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and people are better getting the most up to date information from the company site. The article fails WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Charles (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a split-off from the main Trent Barton article because the list was too long to include in it. This is fine the way it is. I do think you are being most terribly vindictive when it comes to bus routes. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Charles here on WP:NOTDIR. For me it's just an amalgamation of this paragraph on the Trent Barton page and a list of bus routes on the company's website [64] with intermediary stops. My first port of call would be the company's website if I wanted to find out bus times/routes, not Wikipedia. Funny ^Pika! 19:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do still choose Wikipedia as their source for bus routes, there's List of bus routes in Nottinghamshire and List of bus routes in Derbyshire. Both those pages should cover Trent Barton's bus routes, making this article a rather redundant content fork. Funny ^Pika! 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:33, 30 January 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, →B music ian 03:55, 5 February 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, Go Phightins! 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no real reason why it would be useful to anybody, as some have already said, they could more effectively use the company's website. Additionally, I'm not British; but I've never heard of Derbyshire, so it might not meet notably guidelines. I'm also thinking that it could serve as an unconcious ad to get people to ride the bus there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LM103 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. This list only includes current routes, which are no more of encyclopedic interest than past routes (which themselves are not really encyclopedic), and listing by operator isn't really even useful enough to transwiki to Wikivoyage. --Michig (talk) 19:46, 6 February 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 speedily deleted by User:Basalisk under criteria A7, G11, and G12. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusoor Syria[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable WP:ORG. Mostly primary sources and a WP:BEFORE check through Google Books and News reveal no hits. Web hits come back as youtube and facebook. Mkdw ^talk 00:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:14, 6 February 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.

^ http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280
^ http://www.eap-journal.com/archive/v38_i2_03_carter.pdf

[1] ttp://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280

[2] ttp://www.eap-journal.com/archive/v38_i2_03_carter.pdf

[1]

[2]