Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 July	16 July >

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 keep. The consensus is to keep. I even looked at the accusation of canvassing, and found that the notifaction was neutral and appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Espinosa Rodríguez

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

I don't think this page has any WP merit. The fact that there are three reliable sources on the matter is neither here nor there: these sources - Freedom House, Ifex and CPJ - report on all cases of action against any journalist anyhere in the world. In fact, the information is often shared, so it is possible that it all comes from one and the same original source. I am one of their correspondents and as much as I would like to stand up for a fellow journalist, I don't see that this merits a page on WP. Anyone can go to any of the CPJ/ IFEX/ FH annual reports/ media freedom indexes, pull out a random name and then find that journalist in the other two publications. Are we now going to create pages about all 300 journalists cited each year by the CPJ, FH and Ifex working for never-heard-of publications? Not necessarily a definitive argument, but it is telling that the Spanish WP has nothing on Guillermo Espinosa Rodríguez or the Agencia de Prensa Libre Oriental. Very unlikely that a news agency (we are not talking about a small one-page village newspaper, but a NEWS AGENCY) would go unnoticed to thousands of contributors to the Spanish WP. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The idea that an article should be written about every reporter whose career is described in the CPJ is one that would help to expand the encyclopedia. In addition to the CPJ and related reports, the subject of this biography appears to have been elected or chosen delegate to Cuba Independiente y Democratica (CID) in Santiago, Cuba. He is referenced as a notable blogger in this news item from Martí Noticias, a mainstream news source. I think he crosses the line into notability. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I added a few more sources. There are plenty more. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable journalist, certainly wasn't a speediable deletion candidate.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a delegate of a party that is so insignificant that nobody has ever felt the need ro create a page about it here in the WP? Not even in Spanish? That's grabbing at straws. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable not because he is "important" or "significant", which are very subjective concepts, but because many reliable independent sources have taken note of him. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin For the record, Aymatth2, your vote will not be counted and your comments will be disregarded, as you were brought here by Blofeld. It is called canvassing, and it is illegal. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No laws have been broken. Blofeld asked for my views: "Somebody is trying to speedy delete Guillermo Espinosa Rodríguez. Notable?" He could not know how I would respond. I found the subject interesting, added some content, and gave reasons here why the article should be kept. The decision to keep will be based on the evidence of notability, not on a vote count. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete unless totally rewritten. This is a notable topic and Wikipedia should have information about it. However, some vital information is missing, while other information is accepted from biased sources. For example, the article says Espinosa was a part time reporter, but it doesn't say for what news outlet. Or was he a freelance journalist? It says that he filed stories, but not whether they were published. It says "he was told to get another job", but doesn't say by whom. It says he was arrested "for his activities on the 6th anniversary of the arrest of 75 activists", but doesn't say what the activities were. It seems he was later arrested for "contempt of authority" when he was out at a protest while under house arrest; the same thing would probably happen in any country, "contempt of court", and isn't an international incident. The text has weasel words like "seem to have triggered his arrest". The article is being used to promote a point of view, and has no counterbalancing information from Cuban official news or government sources. Even though I agree with this point of view myself, Wikipedia policy is that it is not to be used as a soapbox. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are valid criticisms, but reasons for improving the article rather than deleting it. The difficulty is that the subject is widely discussed by sources hostile to the Cuban regime, and apparently not even mentioned by the official Cuban press. I think it accurately reports what the sources say. Any improvements to the wording would be welcome. Possibly sources that may be considered biased should be named? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to fix if it's kept. For example, it is named as though it's a biographical article about Guillermo Espinosa, but it is overloaded with info about his arrests, and has no basic info such as birthdate and place, where he lived and worked as a nurse, his education, whether he is married, etc., - nothing that is irrelevant to the agenda that's being pushed. Nothing about how he came to be a journalist who employed him, or whether he wrote on other topics besides controversial ones. I believe that a new article should be written with proper balance on various aspects of his life, with a section not more than 25% stating that he had filed news reports on topics that were not approved of by the government, for example ___, had taken part in protests about ___, was placed under house arrest for social dangerousness (if this can be verified), and that his arrest was the subject of a lot of press coverage outside of Cuba, (blue numbers here), and that a number of organizations such as ____ are protesting his arrest. In the mean time, I don't believe that the current POV article should be left in the encyclopedia on the chance that one day it will be improved. Someone should agree to take this on right away if it's not to be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to take a look at this article yesterday, found the topic interesting, dug around for sources and put in what I found with no attempt to push any point of view. There may be some other information somewhere way down in the search results, or offline, but what you see is what is readily available online. If I had found any more, like birth date and place, schooling, employees etc. I would certainly have put it in. But the subject is notable for the incidents described. The sources seem solid, and there is no reason to doubt the facts presented. More information from other sources would certainly improve the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable; sources are reliable enough. Miniapolis 16:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete. Those objecting themselves provide the evidence for why this article does not meet our policies. That they do not like those policies does not change their existence. Once this film gains press (if it ever does), then an article can be created. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drifts

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

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage BOVINEBOY2008 22:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY?

How can upcoming films satisfy criteria of notability? It is ABSURD and a NONESENSE insisting with such an argument to delete an article about a non released film, since it has not yet been commented. There are HUNDRED of such articles published at the Wikipedia. Stubbornness? If not, how can one argue it is no notable film? Is a personal opinion enough reason to delete an article? How can this be accepted?

User talk:Tertulius 01:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the film has not yet received any true coverage in reliable sources. All films must have this coverage, especially unreleased films. The notability guidelines for upcoming films are actually far more strict, as they have to show a lot more coverage. The existence of other articles doesn't mean anything when it comes to keeping this article. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) All that the existence of another article on Wikipedia might mean is that the other article hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. We can't keep things that don't pass notability guidelines in the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). Now all problems with notability aside, this could probably redirect to the director's page for right now. There just isn't enough notability to warrant this having its own article right now. The coverage just isn't there. It might be when it releases, but so far the coverage just isn't there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all upcoming films with articles at Wikipedia have not yet «received any true coverage in reliable sources». Your argument illustrates the main CONTRADITION. If this “rule” is to be respected, most of those articles must be deleted. If not, how can one justify such argument and with which ethics?

Only Major film studios in film distribution will be able to give some coverage to their upcoming films. That is why those defending this “rule” will undoubtedly, volunterly or voluntarily, be working for them. Note that the biggest number of articles in Wiki about upcoming films are Majors' ones.

This problem is too serious to be underestimated. If the rule is kept, Wikipedia will turn into an excellent tool for commercial film propaganda and, on the other hand, a quite good thing to crush independent producers. A scandal!

User talk:Tertulius 15:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:

The following discussion has been moved from the Talk Page to the Project Page by suggestion of user Tokyogirl79 on 16 July 2013 (UTC). User talk:Ulissipus 23:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POINT 1

There are many articles of upcoming films published at Wikipedia that have not been proposed to deletion. Why do you insist in deleting Drifts article (and probably similar ones) and seem unable to explain the contradiction? This is unacceptable.

See Wikipedia articles about upcoming and unreleased films like Labor Day (film), The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film) The Fantastic Four (film), The Good Dinosaur, Finding Dory.

You will find MANY MORE here: 2013 in film, 2014 in film

or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_films.

How do you explain such exceptions? .

Most of these films will be distributed (so it seems) by the Hollywood system. Their Wikipedia articles will certainly be kept, but articles about really independent films, produced outside the system, MUST BE ELLIMINATED, as you implicitly argue. Why? Are you promoting the system and fighting against independent producers? Are you defending powerful commercial interests against cultural ones and against freedom of expression? Whom are you serving?

POINT 2

WP:NFF (Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films).

Drifts, like other films having published articles, is no future film, it is a completed film, in fact not yet commercially distributed. Only commercially distributed films are allowed to have Wiki articles?. If so, this is an aberration. Experimental films, Avant-garde films, Art films, that in many cases never had commercial distribution do not deserve Wiki articles? Must articles about seminal films like Chronique d'un été, for instance, be eradicated from Wikipedia because they have no references of notability?

WP:NFF obsolete, intricate and contradictory "rules" need a deep and radical revision. Instead of fighting arbitrarily for articles deletion you should (this is an ethical exigency) do your best to correct such errors, if in fact you respect the basic principles of Wikipedia and wish to collaborate with good intentioned editors.

POINT 3

Hasty or authoritarian proposals to deletion are negative, especially in the case of articles translated in several languages and kept with no objections for months. Moreover, being linked to many other articles and consolidating relevant information, such actions should be avoided with no previous careful analyses.

POINT 4

Notability

How can upcoming films satisfy criteria of notability? It is ABSURD and a NONESENSE insisting with such an argument to delete an article about a non released film, since it has not yet been commented. There are HUNDRED of such articles published at the Wikipedia. Stubbornness? If not, how can one argue it is no notable film?

User talk:Tertulius 02:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some explanations:

Some of those films have a lot of coverage in reliable sources to merit it being kept. Others don't and should probably be deleted or redirected to an appropriate target. The existence of another article means nothing as far as Wikipedia's notability and AfD standards go. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
If you want to propose new standards for film notability guidelines, feel free to propose them at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). I'll be quite honest when I say that nobody is going to change the rules to where you will be able to keep an article without any reliable sources that establish notability.
The existence of this page on other language Wikipedia sites doesn't mean anything. Every site has their own rules and standards for notability, so something that might pass on another Wikipedia won't pass here and vice-versa. It might also mean that the page on the other site hasn't been deleted yet. We've had people try to argue this, only for the page to get deleted on the other site for much of the same reasons you see here. As far as this page having existed for any period of time, that doesn't mean anything. It just means that nobody noticed it before this point. As far as it being linked to other pages, that doesn't matter either. The only thing that will save this article is coverage in reliable sources about the film.
It's difficult for any non-mainstream, big blockbuster film to gain notability. I'll give you that. However at the same time we can't relax those standards just because it might seem unfair. It's not up to Wikipedia to make up the difference in media coverage for anything. We can't give something an article because the media doesn't cover Derivas while it will fall all over itself to mention other films or topics that seem inconsequential to you or to someone else. That's not how Wikipedia works.

I hope this explains some of the arguments you've brought up. On a side note, you should really post arguments in the main section for the AfD or on the talk page for Derivas. This page is normally left blank. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). No need to hash out the arguments again as Tokyogirl79 has already provided the reasoning in fine detail. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a reader looks for "drifts" then I would have thought that it's much more likely that one of the topics listed at the disambiguation page for drift is being looked for than this film, so I wouldn't support that redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm changing my !vote to what Phil Bridger said -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drift as obviously non-notable and provide a link to Ricardo Costa (filmmaker) from that disambiguation page. In fact I'll put the requisite link into the disambiguation page now as it will be udeful whatever the outcome of this discussion. I can only add that anyone who defines Wikipedia's verifiablity and notability requirements as "a scandal", and spouts all the other hyperbole above, must lead a very sheltered life. There are plenty of scandalous things going on in this world, but this is not one of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT?

Drift redirections. Drifts is so redirected: «Drifts, a film under production directed by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)». This is a false statement. Drifts is not «a film under production». It is a produced film. It is one among many upcoming films, the articles of which are kept untouched at Wikipedia.

The film title is Drifts and not Drift. Although having the same semantic root, these words are different and have not the same meaning. They mean quite different things.

Please, do not redirect articles about films to articles about directors. A film is not a director. Doing so, one persists in error. Don’t do that!

THE SCANDAL

The scandal consists in disguising the problem in focus and hiding the CONTRADITION I have been talking about with no comment. «There are plenty of scandalous things going on in this world» in fact, and this is one of them.

The scandal consists in allowing the existence of articles about films produced or distributed by US film majors with no comment and no objection. Another good example: Seventh Son (film), a Warner Bros. film, is an upcoming film the notability of which is not contested, although its article and sources are not different from those of Drifts in any respect. Article citation: «Seventh Son has switched release dates multiple times. It was originally scheduled for release February 22nd 2013, but moved back to October 18th 2013, to complete post production. It again moved from October 18th 2013, to January 17th 2014, due to the company parting ways».

Deleting Drifts article or similar ones and uttering no single word about things like those, that is the scandal!

User talk:Tertulius 23:17, 17July 2013 (UTC)

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

REDIRECT to Ricardo Costa (filmmaker), where this unreleased film can be spoken of in context to its filmmaker so as to best serve the project. We have a film which began shooting in 2009 and was completed in 2011 but has not yet screened publically. Lacking suitable coverage, this fails WP:NFF. And until independent reliable sources are brought to support the article, even if only Portugese language, and author's wax complaints aside, we have a failure of WP:NFF. We can allow recreation/undeletion once notability (not existance) is shown. And to User:Tertulius... finished or not, released or not... what can allow any film topic to merit an article is coverage in independent reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is answering like robots, reacting like machines: applying “rules” instead of reason. Never facing the problem. Hiding it once more to make invulnerable a hidden intention. Telling one to search for sources where they do not exist, when silencing other unsourced articles. If I am wrong, please help me understand why, with reasonable arguments instead of bringing up to “talk” more and more robots. New war strategies penetrating Wikipedia? Am I dreaming?

User talk:Tertulius 04:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If sources do not exist then there is nothing on which to base an article. That statement is based purely on reason, a word that you should not be using because you obviously have no understanding of the concept, not rules. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on several credit worthy sources like all those listed under upcoming films but not, like all the others, on those consequent of commercial screenings after distribution. None of those films has been distributed. You argue with a paradox to sustain a false reason. User talk:Tertulius 14:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're the one who said above that sources don't exist, so I took that at face value. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Phil! I said what I have been saying: none of those articles can have sources from critics, scholars or from anybody else as the films have not yet been seen. The same for films which have never been premiered, many of which have articles listed at the Wikipedia as unreleased films (Category:Unreleased films). They all have credible sources and have not been deleted or contested. Such articles must be kept, as they may contain valuable information or historical significance.

User talk:Tertulius 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drifts sources and relevance

The article has been improved with new links and references on the latest days. Among them, there are two new references by journalists and scholars (article and news), one associating the film to the sequel trilogy to which it belongs and of which it is an integrating part and the other highlighting its importance as its central theme is Time.

It seems that obvious facts have been in the meantime underestimated: playing their own characters in film, there are notable university researchers referring subjects IN the film and ABOUT the film. Drifts is a metafilm: a film about its own making. Much of what is said inside the film is implicitly a comment on the film. Besides, it is a biographic docufiction. This blend of genres will not be found in any other film. Isn’t that enough reason for Drifts notability? Can’t that be seen?

User talk:Ulissipus 19:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that have been added to the article are this one apparently published by the director of this film and this one hosted at blogspot.com and so a self-published blog. Neither comes close to being an independent reliable source as required for notability. And Ulissipus's second paragraph is utterly irrelevant to notability. I could go out this evening and shoot a film with those characteristics on my mobile phone, but it wouldn't be notable unless it received coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note additionally that the first of the two sources referred to above doesn't even mention Drifts. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Phil,

It seems you are going too far. Your mobile phone argument is ridiculous. But try, and show us your film…

User talk:Ulissipus 20:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.62.178 (talk) [reply]

Paragraph 2 of Ulissipus's comment at 19:15, 21 July 2013 is the ridiculous argument, i.e. that the film is notable because of claims by its director about its structure and genre rather than by virtue of being noted by independent reliable sources. Any film maker can claim that, including me, but it counts for nothing. And please decide whether you are Tertulius or Ulissipus and stick to that name. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your enlightening contribution.

User talk:Ulissipus 21:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Drift disambig per Phil Bridger, unless the name of this article is changed to Drifts (film) or something of that nature. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drifts (Portuguese film) page has just been published. Please redirect Drifts page to this one.

Thanks,

User talk:Tertulius 00:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: big trouble!

User talk:Tertulius 02:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to create the article again under a different title. -- Whpq (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiis fm

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

The Kiis fm redirect was created by accident with the uncorrect usage of capitalization that redirects to KIIS-FM. There is another redirect KIIS FM which has the correct usage of capitalization that redirects to the KIIS-FM article. Therefore, this Kiis fm redirect should be deleted since it's rendered as useless and reserves as a duplicate of another redirect with the same title KIIS FM, just a different usage of capitalization. The audiences can simply input "kiis fm" into the search box and Wikipedia will still return it as KIIS FM which would redirect them directly to the KIIS-FM article. Andrewduong77 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - should be at WP:RFD (and see WP:CHEAP, while you're at it). Ansh666 21:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

102.7 kiss fm

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

The 102.7 kiss fm redirect was created by accident with the uncorrect usage of capitalization that redirects to KIIS-FM. There is another redirect 102.7 KISS FM which has the correct usage of capitalization that redirects to the KIIS-FM article. Therefore, this 102.7 kiss fm redirect should be deleted since it's rendered as useless and reserves as a duplicate of another redirect with the same title 102.7 KISS FM, just a different usage of capitalization. The audiences can simply input "102.7 kiss fm" into the search box and Wikipedia will still return it as 102.7 KISS FM which would redirect them directly to the KIIS-FM article. Andrewduong77 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - should be at WP:RFD (and see WP:CHEAP, while you're at it). Ansh666 21:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 19:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

南山

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

per policy WP:UE we do not have article titles that use Chinese characters. Disambiguation is adequately covered by Nanshan and Namsan. Rob Sinden (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:UE and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY... I am not sure if this is supposed to be an article about an oriental language character (南山), a dictionary definition of that character, or a disambiguation page about several different words that use the same non-english character when written in oriental languages. If the first, then we need reliable sources (in English) that discuss it to show that it is notable. If the second... that is not our job. If the third, there are better ways to disambiguate the topics.... This seems to be written for specialist level Chinese and Korean readers... but our audience here on en.WP is the typical English speaker... who will neither look for nor understand these characters. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is WP:NOT#DICTIONARY relevant here? None of the items listed are dictionary definitions, but most are place names. They belong in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. -Zanhe (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire purpose of the page is to inform the reader what the different meanings of the symbol 南山 are... that means the page is acting as a dictionary. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a terrible misinterpretation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. By that logic all dab pages act as a dictionary. -Zanhe (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Imagine an English speaker who finds a Chinese/Japanese/Korean name on a website and wants to know what it refers to, but has no idea how to transliterate it into English. He or she copy-and-pastes the name into WP, and finds all possible answers. And what do we gain by deleting this article? I fail to see any. BTW, the page just had a spike of 47 page views two days ago. -Zanhe (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt an English speaker would come to Wikipedia for that. Surely the correct place to go would be a Chinese-to-English dictionary. More to the point, even if someone did come to wikipeida hoping to find the translation, how would he go about it? How would an English speaking user be able to search en.WP for this oriental character? It isn't on any standard English language keyboard... so what would he type into the search box? Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how is a Chinese-to-English dictionary the correct place to go when the name could be Japanese or Korean? -Zanhe (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I speak the language, clearly this reads to me as Nanshan, in the transliteration that I learned. I can also usually tell the difference between Japanese and Korean despite having zero knowledge of the language. On the other hand, I cannot tell the difference between many European languages, and therefore I would go to Google Translate's detect language system, not Wikipedia. WP is neither a dictionary nor a translator. However, reading responses below, I support redirect to Nanshan. Nanshan itself already has the Chinese characters; readers would therefore be able to understand. --kikichugirl (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that your sinocentric view is not shared by the vast majority of Wikipedians. -Zanhe (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my imaginings, an English speaker would come across the name on an English language website and the name would be displayed primarily as a romanized transliteration. If the English speaker would like to know what a Chinese character refers to, he/she should go to a Chinese dictionary; a Japanese character, a Japanese dictionary; and so on. That a reader would come across a character with no context to tell him/her the language and no clue as to the language seems far fetched to me, and also irrelevant - Google Translate can automatically select the language, and translation is not the job of Wikipedia.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 南山 is a proper name that means South Mountain, not a word. Dictionaries will not tell you what it refers to. And fortunately Wikipedia is far smarter than Google Translate, which automatically selects Chinese and ignores other languages. -Zanhe (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We regularly use non-English namings for redirects: Firenze, München etc. This is basically the same thing, except we can't use a redirect because 南山 has multiple meanings. This is the what we can do then. And I must disagree with the notion that Wikipedia is for "typical" English speakers: It is for English speakers of all types, including learners, who may not know the English name of such names but want to find them and read about them. And by the way, I'm against the use of Chinese characters in article titles. This isn't an article, it's a disambiguation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I suspect I may get a parade of horribles for this argument: No, I don't think we need to cater to English learners by using simple English (we have Simple for that very reason) in articles. But I do think it's appropriate to have interlingual navigational aids, whether for learners of English, for English-speakers using other languages, or any other kind of people who might find them useful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nanshan. We don't have articles with non-Latin names, per WP:UE, but redirects to suitable targets are fine. The target lists places in China called Nanshan and links to Namsan (disambiguation) for the Korean names.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, but what about the Japanese names on the list, then? I realize they are far fewer in number than the Chinese ones, but it doesn't seem suitable to completely omit them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one Japanese name on the list: Nanzan, which (in English) is distinct and does not need disambiguation. I will raise one final point... The main justification for keeping this page seems to this: that readers who come across this symbol can look it up and find out what the symbol means in different languages. However, that is what a dictionary is for... and Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Disambiguating the transliterations is fine... creating a page about the symbol that apparently only exists to define what the symbol means in various languages is not. I question whether this is really a dab page... I think the purpose is really to be a dictionary definition. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose is not so you can look up the term and find out what it means in a different language. It's so you can look up a word you didn't know in a different language and read an encyclopedia article about it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There is only one Japanese name on the list." But did you even bother to read the page to see how many Korean names are on the list? And explain why it should redirect to the Chinese transliteration? -Zanhe (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's not just one; another Japanese one is hiding a ways down the page under "other uses". I can actually see a case for deprioritizing the Korean names, as 南山 is no longer the usual way to write it in Korean (rather, than hangul version is). The Japanese ones, by contrast, are, I believe, still typically written in kanji. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disambiguation pages are not articles and therefore WP:UE does not apply. They are navigational aid, similar to redirects. Recently, we had another AFD discussion for a Chinese-character disambiguaiton page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/松山 in January 2013 and kept the disambiguation page. --Kusunose 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question... since this is being repeated as if it were a mantra... I have to ask: Is there a policy or guideline that actually says that WP:UE only applies to articles (and not to disambiguation pages)? Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page title at WP:UE: "Wikipedia:Article titles". Is there a policy or guidelines that actually says to apply it also to non-article pages (such as disambiguation pages or redirects, such as {{R from alternative language}} redirects)? I hope not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - WP:NCDAB says that disambiguation pages should conform to naming conventions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCDAB covers "Naming the specific topic articles" (that is, naming the articles that are linked from the disambiguation page), not the naming of disambiguation pages themselves. That's covered by WP:DABNAME, which does not try to conform non-article disambiguation to article title conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. WP:DABNAME would only seem to advocate pages like this as a last resort. And USS Nanshan (AG-3) doesn't belong, as that would not be rendered "南山"! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And there is no other resort here, since no English title covers the ambiguity being disambiguated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. We could redirect to Nanshan, which could be expanded to include the alternatives shown here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's not. Sure could redirect any ambiguous title to any disambiguation page, which could be expanded to include the alternatives there, but we don't do that because it doesn't serve the reader and instead provides a disservice to the reader. Nanzan and Namsan (Chagang) are not ambiguous with "Nanshan" (no mention of "Nanshan" on those pages) but are ambiguous with "南山". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DPAGE could be read to advocate this: "A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"May" is not "should", so there's permitting, but not advocating. In the case of CKJV titles, the normal practice is to use separate disambiguation pages for the various transliterations and one for the CKJV title; those best serve the readers reaching them by search for those titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your solution to "Li", I'm surprised you didn't nominate this for renaming to literally meaning "south mountain" -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep since there is no one target for 南山 as a {{R from alternative language}}. Clean up as needed; no AFD required for clean up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As 南山 is Chinese the obvious target is the one with the Chinese place names, Nanshan. But readers ending up at Nanshan who really need Namsan can use the link to that page provided. That's how disambiguation works.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  南山 is written with characters originating with the Chinese character set. It is a "word" in Chinese, in Korean, and in Japanese. Readers who reach the disambiguation page 南山 can use the links on this page; that's also how disambiguation works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit concerned that there are many words with multiple meanings in many different languages, which could lead to a huge number of such disambiguation pages. Has this been addressed?--Wikimedes (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  It is typically addressed by creating the disambiguation pages as ambiguity is identified. With even the Latin alphabet, there are many words with multiple meanings in many different languages, which has lead to a huge number of disambiguation pages; the huge number of such pages is the solution, not a problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigation aid. Overlapping with differently-titled disambiguation pages is not a problem. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep As an aid to non-native speakers. ~~WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.~~ (Oddly enough, there's no section on translation dictionaries at the linked guideline page, though the Minor differences section does say that Wikipedia uses English and Wiktionary allows all languages.)--Wikimedes (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but did you even bother to look at the entries listed in the page before voting? They're all place names, not dictionary definitions. In fact, Wiktionary has no entry for 南山. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English language version of Wiktionary doesn't (not surprising since 南山 isn't an English word... but it looks like the Chinese language version of Wiktionary does. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only shows your inexperience with Wiktionary. The English version of Wiktionary is full of foreign words along with their English meanings. Just try looking up 南 and 山 separately. And the Chinese Wiktionary entry is empty with no definitions. -Zanhe (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had looked at the entries, why would you assume otherwise? As I see it, the page translates 南山 into several possible English language equivalents. You may have noticed that I mentioned "translation dictionary", in this case Chinese/Korean/Japanese --> English.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the assumption (and I apologize if it was wrong) because this page does not meet any criterion of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. However, I disagree with your view that this page is a translation dictionary. A translation dictionary would simply say "南山 means Southern Mountain(s) in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean", without listing the various places that share the name. -Zanhe (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out the Wikipedia does have a limited function as a translation dictionary. Guidelines for usage of redirects as a navigation aid to speakers of other languages are outlined at Template:R from alternative language and WP:FORRED (both mentioned already by others). These guidelines seem reasonable and well thought out and disambiguation pages are a natural extension.
JHunterJ has said that even a large number of such disambiguation pages would not be a burden on Wikipedia, and this particular page is certainly not interfering with anything as there are still disambiguation pages at Nansan and Namsan.
The use of characters as disambiguation pages was discussed pretty well in January at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/松山.
This page is not the sort of “only a non-Roman script can be used to disambiguate an article title on the English Wikipedia” nonsense going on at WP:Article titles, Li (surname), et. al.Wikimedes (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:POINTy nomination; nominator is currently in a deep and controversial discussion at WP:UE and other places regarding a similar issue. As for why this page should be keeped, I would like to give an example of how important non-English search terms might be on the English Wikipedia. Following the days immediately after Roh Moo-hyun's death, the 노무현 redirect got more than 1000 hits. Non-native English speakers may use foreign scripts to search for things, and I think don't fix what ain't broke applies here. We have many non-English redirects like these, and these redirects don't seem to be hurting anybody so far, and do have their beneficial uses (from what I'm aware of, WP:UE does not dictate what can and can't be done with redirects). Now, in the case of 南山, what do we redirect to? Redirecting to Nanshan would clearly neglect Japan and be biased towards China; redirecting to Nanzan would give a similar problem. Is the answer to this really to delete this page? Or, should it be to not fix what isn't broken? The English Wikipedia does not have a sole audience of native English speakers: as the largest Wikipedia project, many non-native English speakers also use this project, and cases such as 노무현 and 南山 are beneficial in that it helps people who use these search terms. Keep in mind that English is the global language, and if a native Japanese speaker can't find what he is searching for on the Japanese Wikipedia, he might go looking for it on the English Wikipedia next (but may not know the proper things to search for). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FORRED and the line of reasoning in other !votes. And I suggest a total moratorium on any AFDs or PRODs unless there is centralised discussion somewhere to rid these dab pages. GotR ^Talk 02:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only an essay, not policy, but it supports making it into a redirect as this satisfies the first criteria – this is an original/official name. As it's the name of a few places it should be a redirect to a disambiguation page, one of which already exists.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, more than one disambiguation page exists for which a redirect named "南山" would be appropriate. (so this again leads to the problem of needing a disambiguation page called "南山" to lead to the multiple disambiguation pages for the various transcriptions of "南山" into latin characters (and other articles that don't appear on disambiguation pages, because for those transcriptions there aren't enough articles to create a disambiguation page for them)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP arguments aside, the only way anyone would find is (and there could be more possibilities, but my humble cognitive capacities only caught two of them): 1. A native Chinese speaker finding it by mistake when looking it up. 2. A native English speaker genuinely interested in the meaning. We need not concern ourselves with the former case. For the latter, they other resources to figure it out. WP is not made for that. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We concern ourselves with the former case as a matter of course too, through {{R from alternative language}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"WP is not made for that." - and this is where you are wrong; Wikipedia caters to more than one type of usage. People use Wikipedia in different ways, for different purposes. How you use Wikipedia might be different to how I use it. There are no strict rules that dictate how you must use Wikipedia, and I know of certain people (no names mentioned) who admit to using Wikipedia as a masturbatory aid. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are good arguments, no doubt, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. When was the last time you flipped through an encyclopedia, reached Z, and then started with Chinese characters? English-only speakers of English Wikipedia should be able to read the English titles of all English articles (including non-English names/words if they are in common usage in the English-speaking world a la Søren Kierkegaard). WP:UE is a good thing to consult in these situations.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding flipping through an encyclopedia to Z and finding moonrunes, this brings us back to Wikipedia not being a paper reference. Britannica and Encarta don't do this due to their own constraints, and we don't have these constraints. Yes, a large number of our readers are native English speakers, however that does not mean that there will never be exceptions. If I were a Japanese person with limited English ability, and for some reason wanted to consult an English text for information regarding 小泉純一郎, but wasn't really sure on how to properly romanize his name or spell his name in the English language, I would type in "小泉純一郎" and pray that it would take me to the place that I want to end up at (Junichiro Koizumi). This is how non-English redirects can help these people, who are neither the majority of our readers (i.e. native/fluent English speakers), nor readers that do not exist (because they definitely do exist). Now, in the case of 南山, we can potentially have Chinese speakers who want to research Nanshan but don't know how to properly write it in English, or Japanese speakers who want to look up Nanzan. This is where we get an ambigious situation, and this is why we need a disambiguation page, that covers both Nanshan and Nanzan, which are written exactly identically in Chinese and Japanese. The only people who would ever end up at a place like 南山 would be someone who actively searches for it, such as the examples that I have mentioned earlier; this wouldn't concern native English speakers who cannot understand the title, because we wouldn't have such people looking up such a keyword. We don't link to disambiguation pages in articles (and in cases where links do go there, they should be fixed up by other editors). Even if they somehow accidentally end up at the page by some kind of witchcraft, they would either one be uninterested in the topic, and leave, or two read the description in the lead sentence of the page. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 2011 AfD, and {{R from alternate language}} ; though I still don't see why non-English is used in Article titles as part of the base names for Germanic European articles (ß , ð , þ are not accented English letters, they are non-English letters, and if they're acceptable, I don't see why this isn't; as this isn't even an article, it's a dab page. And we're adding Unicode graphics characters, LEET-speak and ASCII art to music article names right now.) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is common to use redirects from non-English names, for example København, 北京, 東京 or 서울. In this case, we don't know whether the person is looking for "Nanzan" (e.g. Nanzan University), "Minamiyama" (e.g. ja:南山 (名古屋市)), "Namsan" (e.g. Namsan (Chagang)), "Nanshan" (e.g. Nanshan District, Shenzhen) or "Nam Sơn" (e.g. vi:Nam Sơn, Sóc Sơn), so the only solution is to keep the Chinese characters in the title. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly- these are just that: redirects. What we can do is have the Chinese title redirect to an English disambiguation page- that would be analogous to your examples. It's not exactly the first time we have a Chinese title refer to multiple things.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you determine whether the redirect target should be "Minamiyama", "Nanzan", "Nanshan", "Namsan" or "Nam Sơn", when you don't know which of the transcriptions the user is looking for? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for "Southern Mountain (East Asia)," or the like. In the lead, explain the different ways this can be understood.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution.--Wikimedes (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an WP:Incomplete disambiguation. If it were needed (and it's not, the 南山 is perfectly fine for a CKJV disambiguation page), it would be simply Southern Mountain. And this is not a vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to change the page (nor to change my !vote again), but in case there is a need there are other solutions, such as some variation of Aua's suggestion, looking up the name in the native language and following the language link to the English article, or searching in the English WP and finding the native name that appears in the first line of an article (would names in an info box show up?).--Wikimedes (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AT and WP:UE both apply to articles. The page being discussed here is not an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but how does your reading of WP:UE support using this name?

"Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English."

Users of English Wikipedia shouldn't, all of sudden, find themselves on a page whose title they cannot read. I am confused how is that even an issue. If there are multiple meanings, then disambiguate.

Let's imagine for a second that we go ahead and leave it there- before you know it, people will start switching place names into their native tongues/alphabet and WP will be rendered useless (reductio ad absurdum? Maybe, but I cannot be the only one who sees this). Keep English Wikipedia..well..english.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages are not articles. They are non-article pages that are located in article namespace, just like how redirects are non-article pages located in article namespace. Their purpose is for navigation, not for education. Hence, it can be argued that WP:AT does not apply to the case at hand. There is also currently discussion at WP:AT as to whether the contents of disambiguating parentheses counts as part of the article title, e.g. "Article title (brief disambiguator)", however this isn't relevant to our current AfD discussion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as WP:LETTER, but I'll entertain that thought for a second. Under WP:DABNAME, you have:

English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.

Moreover, under DABNAME, you have See also: Wikipedia:Article titles. Take that as you will.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "take is as a "See also", not directly relevant." Yes, English spelling is preferred. When English spelling is not possible (as in this case, where the topics do not share a single English spelling), we fall back to the non-English spelling, since the preferred spelling is impossible. Unless you are suggesting the English title Nánshān, Minamiyama, Nanzan, or Namsan or Chinese characters read as Nánshān, Minamiyama, Nanzan, or Namsan or somesuch clunky approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...or Southern Mountain.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even the clunky approach is infinitely more preferable for me personally. A title I, and 95-99% of en.WP users, can understand is better than 南山.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

南山, as the official name of the many places, is at least useful to 1-5% of en WP users. A chunky title like Chinese characters read as Nánshān, Minamiyama, Nanzan, or Namsan is pretty much useless to anybody. -Zanhe (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages aren't written for those who won't reach them. In the case of 南山, why would you or 95-99% of the en.WP users who can't understand it even reach it? No, the readers who would reach it are the 1%-5% who can understand it, and the page is written to disambiguate their ambiguous title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern Mountain" falls afoul of the disambiguation page guidelines. Since none of the pages would be "Southern Mountain (xyz)" form -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "Southern Mountain may refer to: <this list>" isn't true, so that's a bad name for the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like that to actually be applied to Western European languages, where it is clearly not the case, when we have the majority of English language reliable sources spell and style it one way, and our articles insist on using the non-English native forms that even use non-English letters (such as eszett, eth, or thorn, which aren't even English letters modified by accents, they are purely non-English letters) If we don't bother applying that rule to Western Europe, I see no reason to not have disambiguation pages with titles that are not typable, since they are disambiguating the term that is not typable either, so are functioning in the correct manner, unlike all these eth/thorn/eszett articles which clearly have English-lettered transcriptions that could be used but don't, which are articles and not disambiguation pages. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how WP:AT can actually be applicable to dab pages. WP:AT goes into lengthy discussions on exactly how a subject matter would determine the article name. Dab pages do not even have individual subjects. They function only to direct readers to other articles. If anything, on the contrary, trying to use WP:AT as a reason to delete this and other similar dab pages is what runs afoul of WP:LETTER. The common thread in WP:AT is to use the common recognisable name of the subject of the article. That's simply not applicable to dab pages. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HongQiGong: oops! I totally misread your original !vote as you using AT and UE to defend keeping this DAB. My apologies. I missed the "not" part. That said, I still think we shouldn't have a page whose title cannot be read by the overwhelming majority of en.Wikipedia users.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of not being able to read it, but deleting these pages does a tremendous disservice to those who can read it. Even if you cannot read the characters in the title, you can still read the content of the page. While the deletion of this and similar pages would stop leading readers to the correct articles who happen to come to English WP via those Chinese characters. The latter, to me, is a worse scenario than the former. I also understand your fear that this is a slippery slope, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody in this particular discussion is proposing to stop using common English names as article titles. There might be other discussions going on elsewhere about this, but I have not been involved in them. The scope of this discussion as far as I'm concerned is the usage of Chinese characters in dab page titles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and JHunter make really strong points, and had this been any other discussion, I would have conceded and changed my !vote. In this case though, my knee-jerk, gut reaction is to not vote to allow a precedent. Foreign language redirects I can understand, but this strikes me as being on a whole new level. I'd much rather see it deleted than to allow it to go forward. If you want to look up something in Chinese, you can go to the relevant Wikipedia. If you search in Chinese, I think you should get Chinese back. We are catering to English speakers, and having this page WILL benefit 1-5% who speak Chinese, but will confuse the 95-99% who don't. That risk is too much, especially when we are catering to English-speakers first and foremost. Heck, even Google thinks so- try to look up "南山," and all you'll get is Chinese.

I realize I am being somewhat inflexible, and for that, I apologize. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as no different from a redirect. What is a disambiguation page, but a redirect with multiple destinations? (also why there's been pushes for a DfD or expanding RfD to handle disambiguation pages) And if I come across something on the net, but the term is in Korean/Japanese/Chinese (and not the entire page is, someone might type something in their home language while commenting on a thread on a blog, but mix it with English), and pop it into the searchbox, and the topic is originally East Asian, I expect that Wikipedia should return the proper article for it. The same reason that original language redirects exist. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few problems with your rationale. Firstly, these dab pages are a natural extension of Chinese-character redirects, because there are multiple articles that the Chinese terms can redirect to. Secondly, you ignore the fact that most of the world's population have at least a rudimentary understanding of a second language, with English being a very common second language. It is entirely possible that if a user looks up a Chinese term, he may be interested in reading an English article. Thirdly, there is nothing confusing or risky about this dab page. It is written in English, and explains what it translates to, and what it may refer to. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no precedent being set here. This page follows the fine precedent set by the pages in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. -- JHunterJ

(RI)Note to admin: there is an extremely relevant discussion at WP:AT. I suggest holding off doing anything until some solution emerges there that we probably adapt to this situation. For full disclosure, I already !voted above. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC) (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: WP:AT doesn't apply to non-article disambiguation page titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ, the discussion there is more concerned with DAB than articles.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then the discussion is misplaced, and will still have no bearing on disambiguation page titles. Cheers, JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it's an useful and straightforward disambiguation to navigate through these articles. --Cold Season (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to an English title, please. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which title, please? If you'll read the discussion above, you'll find that there isn't an appropriate English title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not alphabetizable, not English, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read WP:FORRED and WP:D. Disambiguation pages are not topic articles, and enabling navigation from non-alphabetizeable non-English titles is good. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good time to revive the proposals for a Disambiguations for deletion page, since these aren't articles, but appear at AfD... -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

102.7 Kiis FM

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

The 102.7 Kiis FM redirect was created by accident with the uncorrect usage of capitalization that redirects to KIIS-FM. There is another redirect 102.7 KIIS FM which has the correct usage of capitalization that redirects to the KIIS-FM article. Therefore, this 102.7 Kiis FM redirect should be deleted since it's rendered as useless and reserves as a duplicate of another redirect with the same title 102.7 KIIS FM, just a different usage of capitalization. The audiences can simply input "102.7 kiis fm" into the search box and Wikipedia will still return it as 102.7 KIIS FM which would redirect them directly to the KIIS-FM article. Andrewduong77 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - should be at WP:RFD (and see WP:CHEAP, while you're at it). Ansh666 21:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rationale for deleting is that she is not independently notable; that rationale has been well refuted by those opposing deletion by pointing out that she is equally notable with her husband. If people want to pursue a combined article, that's fine, but that should be done through a WP:Merge discussion Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xochi Birch

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

Individual is only notable via her husband Michael Birch (businessman), and this article was nearly identical to that one. As Xori has no notability independent from Michael, this page should redirect there. I was accused of being "sexist" for suggesting this, but I would counter to say that the same argument would apply were someone to try to create an article for Marissa Mayer's husband. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: as per OhNo's reasoning, not only is the person not notable, but the content here can be merged with her husbands article. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Review of literature suggests that this individual does not meet WP:GNG. All I find are citations that mention that she and her husband started up Bebo, but nothing about her specifically. Bebo is notable, but she does not inherit notablilty from it. See WP:NOTINHERITED. KDS4444^Talk 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/redirect~~ (changing to Keep, see below) I don't agree that she is "only notable via her husband"; it would be more accurate to say that the two are notable for the same things, namely, the work they have done and companies they have started in partnership. All the coverage suggests that they are equally responsible for their creations, and they are usually mentioned and interviewed together. However, there is no need for two articles, since the information and the sources are virtually identical for the two. He is somewhat more notable in terms of the coverage they have received, so the article should be under his name. Ideally the article should be titled Michael and Xochi Birch but we'll let a redirect suffice. She is already prominently mentioned at his article so no further merging is necessary. (Actually, yeah, Jamie, it is kind of sexist for you to talk as if she is a nonentity married to a notable man, when the evidence all suggests they are a notable team.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Where in the Marissa Mayer article does it say that her husband is also her partner in her high-powered executive positions? It doesn't, because he isn't. He is merely a man married to a highly successful woman. In contrast, Xochi Birch is NOT a woman who happens to be married to a successful man; she is one-half of a successful team. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. ...and you might at least bother to get her name right. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I have no object to redirecting both articles to Michael and Xoki Birch. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but again - it's Xochi. Tough one, I know. 0;-D If the combined title gains consensus, I will undertake to write the resulting article, based on one or the other of the existing articles. I note that the two of them are back in the news this very week, for buying Bebo back from AOL.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just saw Michael and Xorquis name in the news today as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, now you're doing it on purpose!--MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge There are a few independent reliable sources that cover Xochi Birch. There's a piece at BBC News titled "Valley Girls: Xochi Birch" which profiles Xochi, her role at Bebo, and her role at a number of other companies that she co-founded with her husband, Michael Birch. How We Met: Xochi Birch & Penny Rudge in The Independent also exists. If there aren't enough sources to justify both Michael and Xochi having their own articles, they should have a merged article (per MelanieN) rather than having an article for Michael and no article for Xochi given that there are plenty of sources that discuss them together. We are talking equal partners here in business here, not a businessman and spouse. The WP:NOTINHERITED arguments either apply to both (in which case, merge and redirect) or to neither (in which case, keep). —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I should explain something: Xochi originally had her own page with completely unique content, but it was completely deleted (and its history lost) by someone claiming she was “not notable” when all evidence at the time already made abundantly clear that Xochi and Michael are equal co-founders, equal partners of a team that is known for both of them. This original deletion was an example of a systemic and historically prevalent problem (not just on WikiPedia, but everywhere), which is that women’s contributions to society are often ignored, diminished or undervalued. So, to combat this societal issue in a small degree, I set out to recreate Xochi’s profile because they were in the news with The Battery in SF. I wound up using her husband’s page for reference as her original page’s unique and different content was lost, with the hope of diversifying it more significantly over time with the additional Xochi-specific news items that were emerging. But when I came back later to do just that, I found it had been deleted/made to redirect to her husband’s page, causing the exact problem I had set out to address to rear its ugly face once more. And as per usual, the argument provided was the same ol’ fallacy, that Xochi was “not notable” — despite the fact that her notable accomplishments are the exact same as her husband’s. So if she’s not notable, then he’s not notable, and by all accounts we could just as easily delete Michael’s profile in favor of Xochi (yet for some strange reason *ahem* we don’t see this happen anywhere nearly as often as the other way around). Anyway, since both Xochi and Michael are slowly getting notable for their achievements in separate ways (independent public speaking, profiling in the media, etc.) in addition to their team-based notable achievements, it only seems right to me to keep both pages and let them grow more diverse from one another over time. Merging them now seems backwards, as we are just hitting the point in time where their achievements are diverging in more separate, independent ways. — Faruk Ateş (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me. Changing my !vote to Keep, and I have added biographical information to the page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that the two need separate pages, though I retract my orginal argument (a redirect to Michael) in favor of a single Michael and Xochi Birch page. That they've appeared in public speaking venues separately doesn't make them separately notable, especially given that the speaking topics are related to their joint pursuits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to agree that a combined Michael and Quooky page might be an acceptable alternative here. As a standalone page, maybe not, but as a combined page, and as a nod to both Michael and Xoxxkchi's contributions to their collective work, maybe this is the best and most gender-equitable option that acknowledges Xoeki's work on the project. KDS4444^Talk 12:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could I request that we stop making fun of Xochi's name? I realize you are doing it in fun, but it casts doubt on your ability to judge her article respectfully and impartially. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the risk of going off on too much of a tangent...my first misspelling was an honest typo. My subsequent misspellings were not intended to make fun of her name, but just to light-heartedly rattle your cage since you took umbrage with my original typo. It's quite possible that KDS's intention was the same. I don't think anyone intends disrespect to Xochi here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I accepted your cage-rattling with an LOL, but I think KDS has taken it beyond that realm and into a realm approaching ridicule of her (or of her unusual/ethnic name; maybe people are unaware that she is of Mexican extraction and that Xochi is a fairly common first name for girls in Mexico?). I'm just saying "no more, please", because I don't want her name to become a standing joke here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero db

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Google did not reveal any significant coverage other than http://www.clashmusic.com/feature/zero-db Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets both of the above guidelines via two albums on Ninja Tune, and plenty of coverage: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].--Michig (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Michig showed notability. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Largely per Michig, who has shown that WP:GNG and WP:BAND are met. — sparklism ^hey! 15:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wwjk

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

The redirect Wwjk is a duplicate of WWJK that may have been created by accident which redirects to WWJK itself. Wwjk is just a different case variant of WWJK. Most radio stations call signs or call letters are usually identified in all-CAPS only. Therefore this redirect is useless, since the audience can simply input "wwjk" into the search box and Wikipedia will still return the article WWJK anyways without the Wwjk redirect. Andrewduong77 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing activation

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

Pure jargon. I have been unable to find any meaning distinct from "how to plan advertising " I am very reluctant to propose this as a reason for deletion, and I think this is the first time I have every done so, since I know my failure to understand may be my own lack of knowledge. I will of course withdrawthe afd if that proves to be the case. ~ 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:59, 15 July 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 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also don't know enough about the topic to really know if this is a distinct and notable topic. However enough sources are provided which use the expression so that the article shouldn't be deleted. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick review of the sources shows at least the appearance of notability. I see respected journals and textbooks in the footnotes, and assuming good faith, the offline sources seem to square. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shopping hours. Sandstein 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Late night shopping

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

Unless somebody does something drastic, this article will sit here and ferment in its uselessness. It basically says "Late night shopping is shopping that happens late at night." I'm pretty sure my dog knows that. Jamesx12345 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Late Night Shopping This however, can go as pretty much a dicdef (and no, 9pm is not late night except to stereotypical Wheel of Fortune fans). Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into shopping hours which is a broader treatment of the topic with considerable notability. Warden (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete topic is too trivial for an encyclopedia article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Shopping hours is concerned with laws and customs of various countries, not the act of shopping itself. A more logical redirect would be to Shopping, which is a good article. One sentence could be added: "You can do it late at night." Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per Nate. Ansh666 20:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WP:SNOW and WP:CHEAP. There is less than no harm in a simple re-do of a common-sense, old redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Soccer Tournament

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

Non-notable sports season. Neither this article, the current season nor Missouri Valley Conference men's soccer tournament not have independent sources. Nothing obvious in google either. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one of a series of 23 reports about an annual tournament. The justification for deleting it seems to be, "This information seems not to be available anywhere else except in the Missouri Valley Conferences' own records, so it should not be available here, either." Sometimes the lack of additional sources is insufficient cause for saying, "This does not belong here." If such is the justification for deletion, then a huge percentage of the content of the Wikipedia is at least as worthy of deletion, and probably moreso. GWFrog (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that other information is unavailable, it's that it's available at a cost. I could cite newspaper reports, if I could afford to subscribe to any of several archival sites, but I can't afford it. Like GWFrog said, sometimes sometimes lack of independent sources isn't good enough reason to delete. Fredref123 (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref cites have been found and added to this article... GWFrog (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's still non-notable. Giant Snowman 10:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no indication the article meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this isn't the only tournament. There are tournaments before 2009 and after 2009 for this conference. Do they all lack general notability? --MicroX (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without having looked at them in any detail, it's hard to say, but probably yes. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fredref123 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why? Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sourcing arguments are compelling. Sorry, but "I know I've read about this in magazines and stuff" is one of the least stringently argued arguments I've come across at AfD recently. Any redirect can be created as deemed editorially appropriate. Sandstein 06:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Through the Grand Canyon

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

This is a neat and classic musical composition and midi file, but I wasn't surprised that I couldn't find any independent sources about or mentioning this composition (or even Canyon.midi, which all I could find were blog posts about or mentioning it). The only reason why so many people know about it (and probably why some people think its a notable song) is because it was a midi file that was part of early versions of the Windows computer. The background section of this article is entirely unsourced, but I hoping that some user will put citations on it (though I not entirely sure it's enough for this article to be eligible for inclusion), so I could start having the feeling that this song is notable enough to be here. But simply put, the article fails WP:NSONG entirely. End of story. EditorE (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I know I've read about this in magazines and stuff. Will see what I can find. Andrevan@ 21:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you did, and I'm sure what you just said is ~~WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS~~ WP:JNN. EditorE (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Redirect - While it seems like it should be notable since it was part of the early versions of Windows, all that I can find on it is a couple of blog posts about it that probably wouldn't meet verifiability standards. On one of them, George Stone supposedly commented on how and why he wrote it, and it seems pretty legit, but still, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/possible merge to Microsoft Windows - notability isn't inherited, and this little song doesn't have independent coverage of its own. Ansh666 20:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Aninaru

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

Not everything touched by Inna is necessarily notable, and this chap seems a case in point. I mean, just look at the sourcing:

Blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post
Tabloid trash, tabloid trash, tabloid trash
Irrelevancy
Unprofessional interview by an aggregator that publishes effectively all news about Romania, whether notable or not

Which leaves us with this, something that's actually from a legitimate newspaper. But for one, if this remains our only source, the article still fails the "multiple published secondary sources" dictate of WP:BASIC. And for another, this seems like routine news coverage rather than something we'd be interested in having in an encyclopedia. It merely indicates a photographer has changed clients, something that happens all the time. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we should just erase all the wikipedia pages for contemporary photographers? Those links (which are not all of blogs - mtv.ro, europafm.ro, protvmagazin.ro, utv.ro, tonica.ro -, so the multiple sources argument stands) are proof that Aninaru actually did those photoshoots or filmed those videos. It seems to me that you actually have a problem with INNA, not with this article, as you've started this conversation completely wrong.

And why is billboard.com irrelevant?

I get it that you're not passionate about photography, because then you wouldn't see this article as only news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.138.253 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) This nomination has nothing to do with other articles on contemporary photographers or on my views of Inna and/or photography. Let's just get that out of the way.
2) The billboard.com link is irrelevant because the only connection to Aninaru is that the photograph used in the article was taken by him. Under no definition of "significant coverage" does that matter for our purposes.
3) I grant that I perhaps painted with too broad a brush in labeling all those links as "blogs". However, we're still talking about the same level of coverage a blog would provide. Four of the links are very short pieces merely informing us that Aninaru shot videoclips. The other two are blatantly promotional pieces: "Edward Aninaru - the wizard of showbiz"; "Edward Aninaru conquers borders". - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:53, 8 July 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 July 8. Snotbot t • c » 06:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, if it were for us to consider an article's value only judged on its sources, then all the pages presenting Romanian contemporary should probably be deleted, as 90% of all the Romanian press, both printed and online, is actually trash. And music channels websites, such as mtv.ro, utv.ro or europafm.ro are actually more reliable and I do appreciate that you've admited "painting with too broad a brush in labeling all those links as "blogs"".

This page, however, is of a Romanian photographer that actually got to L.A. and is now working with international artists. And the billboard.com link is definitely not irrelevant. Aninaru is a photographer, so a photo with his name actually written on it and posted on billboard it's something big for a guy that started his journey in Bucharest. I actually believe he is a great source of inspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.138.253 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1-800-Therapist

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

I can find no independent and reliable sources that indicate that this company is notable. Note that the only apparent reliable source is http://ireport.cnn.com, but CNN clearly states that they do not vet ireport. I am One of Many (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is considered notable through multiple sources including CrunchBase, PRNewswire, and PRWeb. Abomination13 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC) -- sockpuppet --I am One of Many (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Please note that Abomination13 is now blocked as a possible sock puppet. —rybec 03:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources with more than incidental coverage all appear to be spam/PR and do not meet the threshold of reliable sources. As noted above the CNN article cited in the refs is actually CNN iReport - essentially self-published, not RS, and a regurgitation of the same PR used in the other cites. Note, An article with this title was previously deleted, but I am unable to find the link. Dialectric (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly per Dialectric, any source with a substantial coverage of subject is a PR release. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW; there is no valid rationale for deletion (non-admin closure). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annagul Annakuliyeva

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

I have requested that the article about the Turkmen opera singer Annagul Annakuliyeva should be deleted because the internet nearly has no information about Annagul Annakuliyeva meaning a Wikipedia article about this is singer is not important and very few people read or check this article. Other reasons why this article is not important is because YouTube has absolutely nothing about this opera singer and that the article is the nearly the same as the Radio Free Europe article that was written shortly after the opera singer's death, but written in different words. The article has nearly had no updates since it was written in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.YouTube (talk • contribs) 17:58, July 15, 2013‎ (UTC)

Note - This AfD was not properly formatted. I have reformatted the nomination using Template:Afd2. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have notified the page creator of this AfD. I have no opinion at this time. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rationale above is flawed: (1) a shortage of information on "the internet" is not a reason for deletion (it can be no more than a feature of cultural bias), (2) nor is YouTube the arbitrator of importance (or we would have more articles on cats than on people), (3) the article text is not a copy or close paraphrase of the Radio Free Europe obituary, (4) a lack of active updating is no reason for deletion: we are not spinning plates at the circus here. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The English article is currently linked to the Farsi Wikipedia biography but not the Russian Wikipedia biography. I have tred linking through Wikidata but just get error messages; perhaps someone more adept with the so-extremely-user-friendly Wikidata can complete the cross-links? AllyD (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could clearly benefit from more references, but what it does have is a reputably-sourced obituary, confirming that the subject received a major award (People's Artist of the USSR) during her lifetime, which is sufficient to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion rationale is completely flawed per AllyD above. Searching under her Russian name Аннагуль АннаКулиева, finds numerous mentions of her career and performances in Russian-language books and periodicals from the 1950s onwards [12]. They also confirm that she is a People's Artist of the USSR, more than sufficient for an entry here. She also has an entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia which says she was also awarded the Order of Lenin, the highest decoration bestowed by the Soviet Union. (Google translation) - Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. - Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - flawed rationale, per the above. ukexpat (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per discussion above. Excellent points by other users. Rationale for deletion is flawed. Scanlan (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dewayne Hughes

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

Nothing shows he's notable as either a martial artist (see WP:MANOTE) or geologist. Induction into martial arts halls of fame has long been considered irrelevant to WP notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, he doesn't meet any notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF, with a h-index of 0. His book appears on no searches at all. News coverage is negligible. Fails WP:GNG, and as far as I can tell he fails WP:MANOTE as well. -- 202.124.88.7 (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability or significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Minges

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

Non-notable minor league player, no extra sources that may pass GNG. Wizardman 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, out of baseball for seven years. Mpejkrm (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeesh, I'm ashamed that this page has in this state been on Wikipedia since 2006. A news search turns up some sources, but I don't think enough for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable minor league minor league player....William 11:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spanneraol (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invesdor

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

The article currently has no independent and reliable sources and there is no evidence of notability WP:COMPANY. I am One of Many (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kauppalehti and Talouselämä are both reputable Finnish business-related newspapers, and Arctic Startup is a major source of information on startups in the Nordic and Baltic regions. The major source of notability is the fact that Invesdor is currently the only open equity-based crowdfunding platform in Northern Europe. I think that in order for Wikipedia to provide an accurate view on European crowdfunding it is necessary to introduce some key market players (CrowdCube, FundedByMe, Symbid, Seedrs, and Invesdor).Savolmi (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being the only business of its type isn't a source of notability because notability comes only from "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" – see WP:GNG for more details. The coverage in the newspapers is a much better argument, as long as it is independent and not, for example, based heavily on press-releases. Dricherby (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That is good feedback. I appreciate it. I'll see if I can further improve the article. Any other issues I should be focusing on? Savolmi (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit off-topic for the AfD so I'll reply on Savolmi's talk page. Dricherby (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it's a very young company and coverage is a bit thin, but there is quite a bit of notability evident and unless it closes up or is acquired there is certain to be more substantial coverage going forward. I think we have to use our good judgment here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be increasing amounts of coverage in business-related publications, but not in more general newspapers – at least not to my knowledge. Crowdfunding in general has really yet to take off in Finland, because only fairly recent legislation changes made it a viable option for entrepreneurs. I believe it's only a matter of time before the general media will pick up on crowdfunding, though. And when that happens, Funded by Me and Invesdor will most likely be featured more in general-circulation newspapers in Finland and the Nordic countries in general. Savolmi (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candleabracadabra, I don't understand. "Coverage is a bit thin" means that there aren't many sources; "quite a bit of notability" means that there are plenty of sources. Which is it? Please indicate which sources you think indicate notability: it's not helpful to just say "it's notable". Dricherby (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on what I can read with Google translate, the coverage is mainly press releases -- some, like //www.kauppaleht , are even indicated as such right at the top. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the inner processes of the newspapers in question, so I can't really comment on how they make their articles. I am however fluent in Finnish, and I can find no mention of press releases related to these articles on Kauppalehti.fi. These articles are in the "Own Company news" (loose translation) section, which is a section of the paper targeted at entrepreneurs and for general news articles on individual businesses and industries. There is a "press releases" tab on the row of different sections, but that's unrelated to the issue at hand. Savolmi (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CipherCloud

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

promotional article on small company--the sources are PR, or mere notices 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. A small company, notable only for the misleading claims it has made about its products. Not that that makes a company notable anyway. Maproom (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Page appears to be purely used for marketing purposes --Mikefromnyc (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lord-Castle

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

Bringing to AFD on behalf of subject. Concern is: Privacy. Notability seems minimal and bio is almost wholly negative. See also ticket:2013070910009401. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The many reliable sources indicate that this person is a chronic con artist. Deletion of his Wikipedia biography may well assist him in carrying out future con games. This is not the sort of "privacy" that we want to protect. Quite the contrary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple sources in line with WP:CITE policies assert notability. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without addressing the substance, I attempted to fix the horrid citation syntax. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would not be sorry to see this article deleted. It appears to be about a serial business failure, some of whose efforts look extrememly dodgy. What has he been doing since 2006? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Peterkingiron, notability is not temporary, and dodgy business failures can be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tway Ma Shaung

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

He doesn't meet the notability standards for kickboxers (WP:KICK) and my search didn't the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG--mainly lots of youtube videos. I don't have strong feelings about this and perhaps someone can show his notability--I suspect there may be lots of coverage in his native language.Mdtemp (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:KICK, WP:GNG, or any other notability standards.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I couldn't find enough coverage to show he meets WP:GNG nor evidence to show he meets WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slam Dunk production

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

"This article purports to define a statistic for the game of basketball that does not exist." 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:GNG and even perhaps WP:HOAX. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community Informatics (company)

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

Company fails notability guidelines. I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. No official website even available. Tinton5 (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Company is notable startup based in New Jersey and official website can be found easily by searching Google. URL is http://ci2informatics.com. Additionally, the company was profiled in NJBIZ recently for their software product. 70.215.70.51 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, not even a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the basis for a speedy delete tag. Numerous other startups in New Jersey and throughout the United States have both been considered notable and covered with their own Wikipedia article. This one happens to be up-and-coming technology company that is notable in government circles and, like 70.215.70.51 mentioned, was profiled recently in NJBIZ. Bonked116 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any entry for a company with no claim to notability can be speedied. I can't comment on the relevance of coverage in NJBIZ, in part because I can't find it. The rest of your point appears to be a classic "what about x?" argument. Hairhorn (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:INCUBATE. There is a consensus to delete given the current lack of coverage; since, as some editors point out, this is very likely to need an article in the near future (once the movie is released), incubating may make it easier to restart that process Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veeran Naal Sardari

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this upcoming film in sources other than social networking, blogs, etc. There are a lot of sites with the trailer, but don't tend give substantive information except for actors' names. ... discospinster _talk 23:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered in mainstream media here: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120408/ttlife1.htm --Soman (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't know if that can be considered significant coverage. The article is about beauty routines of actresses, and the film is mentioned as an aside. ... discospinster _talk 13:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: What qualifies As significant coverage is a topic being spoken of in a manner so that our own readers need not have to extrapolate details. IE: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention

but it need not be the main topic of the source material. So if it is determined that the film is being spoken of "as an aside" and only in a trivial fashion, then your argument has merit. If the film is spoken about in enough detail and relationship to the actor's career even with the film not being the main subject of the source, then it is not. At the very least, the offered source confirms the actress being in the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment: Well, it says that she's in the movie, and that's it. ... discospinster _talk 15:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per WP:NFF and TOO SOON as an unreleased film that is only now beginning to get coverage. I expect this one will be welcome back in mainspsce within months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage in reliable sources apparent from the article, the passing mention indicated above is insignificant. Also, though that's not a good argument for deletion, the content is of extremely poor quality and nobody has been motivated to rewrite it... Sandstein 06:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Chamberlain

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

College athlete, no pro career, no records set, no substantial discussion of him in any independent reference I found on Gnews, or Gbooks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. News sources from the late 1930s are not easily retrieved, but sufficient sources exist to demonstrate his notability. He was the Big Ten Conference batting champion in 1942 before serving five years in the U.S. Navy during WWII. Baseball has been a sport at the University of Michigan since the 1860s, and in 150 years of baseball at that institution, Chamberlain is one of only 15 individuals, along with the likes of Jim Abbott, Steve Boros, Barry Larkin, Branch Rickey, and George Sisler, who have been inducted into the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor for their contributions as a baseball player. Cbl62 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep On balance makes the encyclopedia more complete. May weakly pass the notability bar based on what's in the article. The state award noted in his obituary mentions contributions to the state and nation. Are there any beyond service in Navy and as collegiate athlete? That might push it over the bar more fully. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notability standard for athletes whose career does net extend beyond college (WP:NCOLLATH) is very short, so I will just paste it here for all to consider:
  - College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:
    1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
    2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
    3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.
- Note that being inducted into his school's hall of fame is not on that list, nor is a conference individual championship. Serving his country is a great and honorable thing, but it certainly does not make him notable. Every fit man his age served his country. This is WWII era we are talking about. And since when does the difficulty in locating sources factor in to a notability decision? The sources have to exist to show notability or he isn't notable. If they are hard to find is somehow an argument, then anyone can claim they are notable with difficult to locate sources. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with the slippery slope argument, Gtw. Nobody is saying that every WWII vet is notable. Also, difficulty in locating news sources has long been a factor in assessing notability of persons from the pre- and post-Internet era. In this case, being one of 15 baseball players to be inducted into the Hall of Fame of an institution with as long of a sporting history as U-M is extraordinary and notable. News coverage of recent inductees is abundant and easily retrieved. Not as easy for someone from the 1930s. Enough to show notability IMO as is, and likely to be a lot more if we could more readily access 1930s news coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ten batting champion, school's hall of fame, and state recognition. I think it's probably enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Candleabracadabra and Cbl62; at worst based an WP:IAR argument, given that WP:NCOLLATH can't necessarily encompass every possible combination of accomplishments (including non-athletic ones) that may in aggregate attain an adequate level of notability, particularly for a non-BLP. And there has certainly been more coverage of him than currently in the article, for example [13] and [14]. Given the reliably sourced accomplishments for this person and the relative difficulty in finding 65 year old sources, I am inclinded to believe he is adequately notable to pass WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument outlined above by Candleabracadabra. Notable Individual. Finnegas (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BAM Energy Group

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

Author of the article claims notability on my talkpage, I believe it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more reliable sources, including World Maritime News, which is widely quoted in support of maritime articles, e.g. List of shipwrecks in 2013. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain It just might be notable. The article for South Florida Business Journal is more than a press release. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sting (percussion)

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

Deprodded as "more than dicdef", but I can't find any sources. I'm getting nothing but false positives no matter what word combos I try, nor do I see how this can be more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the main issue is here. Agree that it's very hard to find online sources, owing to the prominence of several musicians (including some drummers) with the nickname Sting, I guess that's what you mean by false positives, and I'm finding that too, see Talk:Sting (percussion)#PROD. But surely you're not saying that this term is not widely used... have you asked any drummers or comedians? Yes, the article is little more than a dicdef, but it is already a little more, in the sense that the material there goes a little beyond what would be welcome at Wiktionary (compare to wikt:sting). It's a useful stub. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a drummer or percussion as a source on Wikipedia though. Word of mouth means nothing here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, it doesn't count as a reliable source, but it should sound a warning that we may be looking in the wrong places for sources, which the false positives indicate too. What they're all telling us is that we need to look further. Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment While there are sufficient reliable sources available ([15], [16], [17], etc.) I'm not clear on how this sting differs from Sting (musical phrase) and think merger would make for a stronger single article. I have no strong opinion as to which article should be merged into the other. - Dravecky (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, educational and encyclopedic. Ba doom boom. — Cirt (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rimshot. No sources to indicate the two are substantively different p b p 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is at least one redirect and merge needed in this area, but that is not it!
- In the context of percussion (and noting that the disambiguator in the article title here is percussion), a rimshot and a sting are different concepts, related only rather loosely. Our Rimshot article already [18] gives two references, but its see also section Sting (percussion) - an alternate form of rimshot... is confusing and just plain wrong... ~~I'll fix it~~ (fixed). While I have neither of the references given to hand I'm sure they will support the following: The well-established primary meaning of rimshot in the context of percussion is an advanced performance technique, and the word describes a single strike of the stick, see http://www.studydrums.com/rimshots.html for a good description. See http://soundandthefoley.com/2013/04/10/of-stings-and-rimshots/ for the way in which it contrasts to a sting, which refers to a whole phrase used for a particular purpose, not to a single stroke or particular technique. It seems that in the context of comedy such a sting is also sometimes rather confusingly referred to as a rimshot, possibly whether or not a rimshot is actually included (with the rimshot it would be ba-da-pok rather than the more usual ba-da-tish, I've never heard or played ba-da-pok but have often heard and occasionally played a short roll ending with a rimshot brrrr-pok as a very effective sting but less common than the one with the cymbal, and have a personal favourite baba dada pok using two kicks and two toms then the rimshot - needs to be played very fast to work well). And I suppose a rimshot could be used on its own as a sting (pok on its own), but I've never heard it so used and don't imagine it as being terribly effective - IMO any drummer capable of a reliable rimshot is likely to play a more conventional and effective sting than just a single rimshot, most often consisting of more than a single stroke or if a single stroke it would be a cymbal choke (tish) not a rimshot at all (as drummers understand the word). Does that clarify? Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of a sting

A sample recording of the performance of a sting.

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Why the rush to delete this stub? Perhaps allow time for expansion instead. Ba dump, dump taah. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much time does it need? The article's been around since 2005. Are you expecting it to magically grow sources overnight? Don't be stupid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this... in fact this whole discussion since removal of your PROD... would be better at Talk:Sting (percussion)? The article has had some attention in the last few days... even from yourself I see [19] (Thank you! But I'm afraid I have some concern about that particular edit). And it's likely to get more, including from myself, now that the PROD has highlighted your concerns, again see the talk page (which you are yet to edit at all, you didn't even respond there to the PROD challenge, see Talk:Sting (percussion)#PROD). But it would help if you'd answer my question above about exactly what you see as the issue... I'm guessing that now you've abandoned your earlier dicdef claims [20] [21] and are now instead basing your deletion request purely on the lack of sources, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with rushing straight to AfD after a challenged PROD is that there's little incentive to work on an article about to be deleted anyway. Of course contributors should be encouraged to fix the reasons for the AfD if they can, which makes it particularly important that the reasons for the AfD should be clear. But you don't seem to have conceded either that the article is not a dicdef (certainly no longer, if it ever was) and that the term is in common usage, nor have you put a clear argument for the AfD now that these concerns have been dealt with. I think you should be very careful about calling other people's arguments stupid! Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ye who resorts to Name calling (a cognitive bias) may perhaps be missing the finer points within the overall discussion? Sorry, but, Bah tap tap taaaaaah (again). Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and apologies if I've stooped to it above. It's of course a breach of WP:NPA as well as a dubious argument. The story of the preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes "logic weak at this point, speak a bit more forcefully" makes the same point. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or merge to Sting (musical phrase), which already has a sentence or two about this anyways. Ansh666 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:Sting (percussion)#Related articles. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real thing, different from others. If someone in the entertainment industry mentioned it in a book, or it was mentioned in a university level textbook, that'd be a great addition to the article of course. Sort of hard to find do to the common name "sting" having too many search results to go through. Dream Focus 16:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Bujčevski

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MicroX (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sic Squared Records

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

Subject of the article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The only reference within the article is to a now-dead link, and a search for reliable third party sources about this company produces only "books" that are themselves composed of Wikipedia articles (i.e., that draw from this article in a circle). Other sources do not appear to be available, so I propose that the article be Deleted from the Wikipedia main namespace. KDS4444^Talk 17:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fixing the broken link was trivial; you could have done that, instead you went to AFD. While I don't question your good faith, I do question the quality of your deletion nominations. This is another bad one - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added numerous references, which establish its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Gerard, Dan arndt and SL93. Notability has been established.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Rahim

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

I don't think he meets either WP:PROF or the GNG. The article is furthermore almost promotional enough for a G11 speedy deletion: it relies on Linkedin and similar sources, lists in-college and alumni awards without any major awards, lists only a small number of journal articles in very minor journals without exact referencing (e.g. " International Journal of Project Organisation and Management" indexed in no major indexes, from a publisher called Inderscience--probably named to trade on the reputation of Wiley's imprint Interscience), talks about his career in vague terms: "multiple universities" , and "invited to lecture at" is not an element of notability,. I tried to fix it, but I gave up, as there was not enough underlying notability to be worth the effort. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination advanced. Run of the mill Business administration professor with no claim of notability. The Legend of Zorro 15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article was contributed entirely by Morning277 sock-puppets, leaving its neutrality in doubt. —rybec 07:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per great nom by DGG. I don't think it's close enough for G11 because there are some claims of notability, but none that reach the WP bar. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People's Party of Spain in the United States

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

Fails English Wikipedia notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), specifically, the two following sections:

No inherent notability

a local unit of a larger organization.

Finally, the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not LinkedIn basically sums up the rationale for this AfD. Technopat (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With only one external link going straight to the homepage, and the fact that there are no other reliable references to show the notability of the article. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree no inherent notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue. Nominator should consider starting a redirect or merge discussion on the talk page(s) of the affected article(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Dinosaur

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

Propose for redirection to List of Dilbert characters. When Dilbert was more of a domestic type strip, him, his wife Dawn (both from 1989), and their son Rex (from 1990) were seen on a regular basis because they lived in Dilbert's house. After it shifted to a work environment, Bob was given much less to do and became a recurring character that only appears for strip series about once a season. Dawn and Rex disappeared entirely after 1991 except for a 1992 strip with a non-speaking appearance by Dawn, and one 1997 series in which they didn't have any speaking lines. Besides that, except for the sources; the article is basically the same at the character page. Thebirdlover (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is articles for deletion, not articles for redirects. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yohan Robinson

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

Non-free (both, beer and speech) sources require login to view. Does not pass WP:GNG, nor importance. Tek022 | _Comments? 16:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relatively junior faculty member that doesn't pass WP:GNG, rather resume-like. Tomas e (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for sources to be free in any sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Absolutely correct, verifiability does not (necessarily) equal accessibility. Some editors prefer open access sources, but this is personal preference and is not supported by policy. Lesion (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It takes an exceptional associate professor to pass WP:PROF, and I see no such exceptionality here, especially since Robinson has only just been appointed to that position. Some of his papers are picking up citations, so he may well become Wikipedia-notable in a few years. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the rather faulty nom. He did a thesis. He published. He taught. Now for something that makes him pass WP:PROF. Let's wait a couple of years for that. --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - agree does not appear to meet PROF, or at least based on the content that is there. Unsure if we are not utilizing sources that would change that. Lesion (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll also be salting, as this is the article's third deletion. --BDD (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Van Mladen

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

A somewhat promotional article, containing words such as "accomplished" and "superb", with inadequate sourcing, and little evidence of notability. One of the main claims of significance in the article is that he has been nominated for some awards, and that in a couple of cases he got within the first few dozen in the placing for those awards, though nowhere near the top. I can also find no evidence that the awards are particularly notable, but in any case he has not won any of them. The article also claims that he has "one of the world's biggest Eletronic [sic] radio-shows", but it gives no source, and I can find none. The expression "Electronic radio-shows" seems odd, since all radio is electronic, but searching I find that it seems to mean an internet "radio" show, in which case quoting the number of countries in which it is heard is ratehr meaningless, since most internet sites can be found from anywhere in the world. Of the three sources, one is a dead link, one is a web site that declares its own purpose as being promotion, the other looks as though it has a similar purpose, and also uses user-submitted content. There are quite a few promotional pages for him, but I can't find anything that could be regarded as substantial coverage in reliable independent sources.

A twice speedy-deleted article, repeatedly recreated, apparently by the same user, using two accounts. (Whether the same person or not, the accounts are both single-purpose accounts doing nothing but promoting Peer Van Mladen.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per self-promotion. Twice deleted.--Zoupan 11:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dilation as field (DaF)

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

No reliable sources given. In fact, no reliable sources discuss the theory (at least under that name.) As I don't fully understand the theory, I can't tell whether reliable sources might discuss it under another name, but I doubt it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics has been notified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Journal of Modern Physics is, so far as I can tell, a sort of vanity press, and the other references are to arxiv articles, which, of course, vary greatly from pure junk to top quality, so no guidance there. All significant entries are by a single author, who gives no information about him/herself. The evidence points to this being largely original research with no peer-reviewed sources. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Sources in article not reliable; no reliable sources found on searching. -- 202.124.73.21 (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Subject sounds like a joke/hoax. - DVdm (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radovan Filipović

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

Non-notable footballer - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject of article has played international futsal however futsal is not specifically addressed in WP:NSPORTS and mentions of him playing futsal do not address him in any detail beyond routine coverage. Hack (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was unaware there had been a previous deletion discussion for this article (the deletion page was semi-automated using Twinkle). With respect to the points raised in the previous discussion, I believe that the recent consensus - that football articles technically passing WP:NSPORTS/WP:NFOOTBALL but do not meet WP:GNG should be deleted - applies in this case. Hack (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --MicroX (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I !voted 'keep' last time in order to bring up to GNG; that has not happened and therefore I do not feel this player is notable. Giant Snowman 11:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian scientists

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

~~For the exact same reason we do not have any article of the name List of American scientists~~. This list is wholly redundant to a category and does not serves any purpose except spamming by IP editors. The Legend of Zorro 16:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve - Actually, we do have an article titled List of American scientists. There's also List of German scientists, List of British scientists, List of Italian scientists, List of Russian scientists (This one is particularly excellent and should serve as an example for the others to follow), List of Chinese scientists, etc. While nowhere near as nice as the Russian list, this list is better organized than many of the other ones and is entirely blue-linked. Someone might ask WP:INDIA to consider giving this list a higher priority for work. They only considered this list as mid-importance when they assessed it last year, whereas WP:RUSSIA considers their scientist list to be of top importance, which would explain the apparent amount of work put into it. Also, lists are not redundant to categories. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all of the entries were created by the single user Special:Contributions/Ahmed91981. The Legend of Zorro 18:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should thank Ahmed for creating them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why this article is different than many of the other similar articles, not only of scientists, but of other fields: List of Russian ballet dancers, List of Australian architects, and List of German bodybuilders, just to pick 3 at random. I, for one, would be happy for all such list articles to be removed and kept only as categories...but that is not the current consensus, and I don't see why this one particular article is any better or worse than others. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Precedent for similar others has been established. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Actually all precedent was created by the single user Special:Contributions/Ahmed91981. The Legend of Zorro 04:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what we mean by "precedent". We're referring to the fact that, many times in the past, articles on "List of Nationality Profession" articles have been created and improved by many, many editors. Some of these have even been taken to AfD before. The general consensus is that these articles are notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing to see any AFD nomination before of any list of xxxx scientists. First of all the scientist term is vaguely defined and this makes it different from all other professions. Second in case of India the term Indian is also vaguely defined. In last view the article contains names such as *Baudhayana *Bhāskara I, *Bhāskara II, Chanakya and others which it should not contain under even the loosest criteria of inclusion in this article. In any case I will be willing to clean this total mess article and I am not hell bent to this article. The Legend of Zorro 05:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwyrxian. Who are you addressing? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Solomon7968/The Legend of Zorro. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. One of the reasons given for deletion has been withdrawn, so I'll address the others: redundancy between a list and a category is not a reason for deletion and the tool to deal with spamming by IP editors (if it is real issue rather than just a fear on the part of the nominator) is semi-protection, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. Per the suggestions given below, I am assuming good faith that the notability of the plan is verifiable in offline sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

County of London Plan

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

Not a notable document. The article is currently citing itself, rather than any significant or independent news coverage. A search for the document's name turns up copies on Amazon, or people on blogs talking about it, and the odd other cursory mention that just validates its existence and not much else. Fundamentally, though, while the ideas contained within it are probably notable for London's history, and it could be used as a reliable source for those, there doesn't seem to be anything suggesting the actual document itself is particularly notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not much in news, but sufficient coverage can be found via Google Books. Peter James (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst much of its proposals were not adopted because of post war austerity, the County of London Plan is a significant document in the planning history of Greater London. The fact that the article lacks citations is not proof that there are none, just that they haven't been put in. They can be easily found and there is plenty of coverage in the newspapers from the period. It also seems strange to consider that the ideas are separable from the document, given that its purpose was to publish the ideas. I don't suggest that it is of the same rank, but we wouldn't suggest that On the Origin of Species or The Communist Manifesto are not important books. I think this should stay.--DavidCane (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are lots of sources, why has nobody cited them, or at least linked to them? My search for significant news coverage suggests otherwise. I think you're making the mistake of confusing the significance of the document as a source with its notability. Just to clarify, I created the AfD because I wanted to improve the article but couldn't, and if someone can list a couple of good, in depth sources, I'll probably speedy close this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is the Abercrombie plan for London, which as others have indicated is one the most famous examples of urban planning in British history (it should be paired with the Greater London plan of the following year). I do not have access to the right library to refer to the best sources, but a glance at Google books suggests that The County of London Plan explained by E. J. Carter, Ernö Goldfinger, John Henry Forshaw, Sir Patrick Abercrombie, and London County Council, published by Penguin in 1945, or Peter Hall's lecture Abercrombie's plan for London, 50 years on are more than adequate to establish notability and there are plenty of other examples. Improving an article such as this is a challenge - a glance at my bookshelf suggests that the Abercrombie Plan is mentioned in almost every book on the history of London, but it has received so much coverage both at the time and subsequently that one should be selective in choosing cited sources and fairly well immersed in the topic to contribute usefully to the article.

Surely, the fact that it is a frequently cited document is the foundation of notability for Wikipedia's purposes, BTW? We have these articles precisely because people will find passing reference to it and want to know what the source actually said without having to get hold of a copy. --AJHingston (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request may be able to offer assistance. Alternatively, I have some colleagues with access to the Times digital archive who may be able to pull out something. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There will be people around who have studied the Abercrombie report(s) in some depth. A topic as important as this certainly deserves a good article. An understanding of its context and influence would be very helpful to an editor, as well as the content of the report itself which can of course be obtained by reading it. I would certainly not think I was equipped to do that myself. But we need to distinguish between article improvement and the deletion process - as several of us have pointed out it can hardly be said that this is not a notable topic, quite the reverse. --AJHingston (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baba (slavic word)

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

A regular Russian-language word without any noticeable presence in English language. The article is a dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary - Altenmann >t 15:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crone. Baba Yaga is already included at that article. For more evidence of folkloric notability of "Baba" in the sense of "crone", see Encyclopedia of Russian and Slavic Myth and Legend. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't redirect every chinche vieja to something English. And there is no "evidence" in the book you say about what you say. Not to say that the book in question actually claims that "crone" (hag) is "Yaga" in Russian, which kinda undermines the credentials of the book author. - Altenmann >t 15:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Baba" (in meaning "woman") is one of the key elements of Russian traditional culture.Vadim Kiev (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References, please. - Altenmann >t 15:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to crone, as suggested by 24.151.116.25. Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba (nickname). Cnilep (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Theta would be false and misleading. "Baba" is much not the same as "crone". There is no way to redirect a foreign word with many native meanings and no English meanings to a single English word - Altenmann >t 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baba (nickname)

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

A chaotic dictionary collection from several languages with no evidence of usage in English. - Altenmann >t 15:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting GNG independently of folkloric usage of "Baba". (addressed further up page. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC) An argument could be made for redirecting this to Mama and papa. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be reverted deletion of part "Version of common etymology", that links content together.Vadim Kiev (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There was no "common etimology" for this page. There were three different etymologis for different language families. And by the way, 'baba' is not a nickname for any of them. - Altenmann >t 15:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename to "Baba (word)" Vadim Kiev (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version of common etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baba_(nickname)&oldid=563632211 Vadim Kiev (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common etymology for this word. - Altenmann >t 01:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba (slavic word). As to Baba (nickname), I'd say delete it as a partial replication of that article (though I have recommended that the "slavic word" name be redirected to Crone). Alternately, I would not object to selectively merging some content to Mama and papa. Cnilep (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Selective merge This is a rather useless linguistic-only content fork (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADMEWORKS ModelBuilder

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

Non-notable software. Widely available (at least, widely distributed on various download sites), but not widely reviewed. The one independent mention that could be found (in the book In Silico Toxicology) said of the software that there was insufficient information available to even determine its performance in several key areas. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, unsourced, and what content exists reads like an advert. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom for A7 when first started. Mdann52 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. spammy. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Báez

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

Appears to fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. There are claims of playing professional football here; but I can't seem to find anything to prove that he has. He certainly never played for Portland Timbers in the NASL, and it doesn't appear that they were fully pro in 1988 or 1989. The New Mexico Chiles didn't play in a league listed in WP:FPL, Irapuato were in a league not listed in FPL, and there's no evidence he played for Club America or Cruz Azul. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1990 Baez played for the New Mexico Chiles in the American Professional Soccer League (APSL), a fully professional league and the top U.S. league at the time. Before that, he played in the Western Soccer Alliance which, along with the American Soccer League on the east coast, was the top level U.S. league. In 1995, Baez coached in the USISL Professional League, roughly equivalent at the time to a second division league with the A-League (formerly the APSL) being the de-facto U.S. first division league. Mohrflies (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The APSL is not listed under WP:FPL. Given comments within the 1980s Portland Timbers article that the club was only semi-professional (as it contained amateur and professional players), the APSL cannot have been fully pro. There is no evidence he actually played a match for New Mexico Chiles in any search I made anyway. USISL Professional League is also not listed under FPL, and neither is the Western Soccer Alliance. The majority of top-flight US leagues were semi-professional. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Baez played both in a fully professional soccer league and a top level leagues which was not fully professional per WP:NFOOTY Mohrflies (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no evidence he actually played in a match anywhere, and you've failed to provide it. Top level leagues that aren't fully pro do not satisfy NFOOTY. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no record of Báez at Mediotiempo.com, so I don't believe he ever appeared in the Mexican Primera, and there is also no evidence he appeared in a fully-pro US league. I can't find evidence that the article would pass the GNG either. Jogurney (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austar set-top boxes

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

An unreferenced list of set top boxes for a defunct Australian pay TV provider. Completely non- encyclopaedic. Step hen 12:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced list of non-notable set-top boxes. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to imagine this subject getting good independent coverage.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be exactly as relevant as any other "list of…" article on the wiki. One can trivially find references for most of these boxes (and ones assumes the rest with more than trivial effort). Why would we delete this potentially useful information? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom sats 07:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lanka Sagar

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

completely unsourced. No indication of WP:notability. Not finding any WP:reliable sources in google. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its a reservoir dam. Thats it's notability. And looking at the size, catchment area, capacity, number of spillways and a big blue spot in the map i think it is notable enough. I couldn't find any established notability criteria of dams and hence have asked WP:DAMS over here to comment here or direct us to the notability. Irrespective of what they say, the numbers demand that the article be kept. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem reliable. Shanno n 09:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't the grandest of dams but reliably sourced and notable. There is no set notability for dams but the standard in general is low. This dam is quite long, a decent height and has a set civil purpose. Micohydro plants, check dams, most weirs and small dams (<~5 meters) probably don't rate a stand-alone article. This article will probably never be a good or featured article but it is enough to stand-alone. Renaming it as a dam may be good too.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7) by DGG. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fucilla

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

I'm nominating this for deletion because the claim of the books being in libraries is *just* enough to barely and I stress barely survive a speedy nomination. Notability is clearly still in question as far as this author goes and I can't find much of anything that establishes notability. As far as sources go, I couldn't find much- just what looks like local coverage. Not enough to pass notability guidelines in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally nominated the page for speedy deletion, as I saw no inherent notability here, and I couldn't find anything to support keeping it here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to help the article creator build a slightly better article. Had I found any book reviews I would have added them as refs. Sam Sailor (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Fucilla has been recognised by UK critics as one of the most prominent science fiction writers, many of his works being compared to Asimov, Clark and Philip Dick. He has been the top selling author for Arima Publishing for over two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.3.16 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 July 2013‎

Moving this here from the talk page of this AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, you have to prove this with reliable sources. You can claim that people have compared him to those authors, but you'd have to prove that these critics are notable and that they're not repeating something that was told to them by a press release or the like. Also, sales mean nothing when it comes to notability. It makes it more likely that something will gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why is there an AFD for this article, when the user her/himsel blanked the page and gave up on the article? Prabash.Akmeemana 10:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was started before he blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G7; the author blanked the page. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 12:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author agrees with this nomination. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Russia bus crash

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

Recommending deletion per WP:NOTNEWS and failure to meet the notability guidelines for events. Furthermore, there is very little coverage of this event outside of this CNN brief, and as such, the event lacks persistent coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. No persistent coverage. Tragic event (2 children), but forgotten the next day. No significance from any other fatal bus/car crash every day of the year. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Gap Footpath

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

Sources seem to be mostly primary, have been unable to find much secondary coverage — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is viable too, in my opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Locally significant; notability is attested by multiple media sources (four are cited in the article from three different news outlets). The principal sources for the article are published by the government, national heritage and national conservation bodies, so there is no problem with reliability. Prioryman (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some very local news sources describing one minor event (the 6-week works done on the footpath), making it dubious that it is even locally significant (at least not any more than any other road and footpath in a small city). The "principal sources" are not independent, and of those, the ones by the "national" heritage and conservation bodies (note that "national" in this case means "the main body for a city with 30,000 people") are information boards erected along the path, not books or major other publications. It is rather telling that the history section has in reality one supposed fact about the path, i.e. that it has been in existence since before 1779. This is supposedly sourced to the information boards. The rest of this section, which is half of the article, is not about the path at all. The second major part of the article is about the refurbishment; these are works of utterly minor importance, which are going on in every city in the world at all times, installing picnic tables and waste bins and unclogging drains. The purpose of an encyclopedia, not even one as large as Wikipedia is not to describe every road and footpath in the world, and that's why in general having only some minor local sources (and even there only some small articles) is not considered sufficient to base an article on. Note that it gets 26 Google hits, not even excluding Wikipedia; it is not mentioned in even a single Google Books result or Google News Archive result. It did get a Gibraltarpedia QRcode picture earlier on the day that the article was created on Wikipedia[22], uploaded by an editor whose article on Wikipedia was co-written by the same author that wrote the article now up for AfD, but that probably tells more about how the Gibraltar Board of Tourism and Gibraltarpedia are steering which articles are created here, instead of the spontaneous creation of article for truly notable subjects by truly independent authors. The coincidence that another main driving force behind Gibraltarpedia approved the article for DYK and was the first to argue for keep here is too insignificant to notice though. But anyway, if such shenanigangs would lead to neutral articles about notable subjects, I wouldn't care; but a footpath of Gibraltar, which has gone unnoticed outside Wikipedia, is taking things a few steps too far. Fram (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Prioryman. If referncing the panels which have been drawn up by the Heritage Trust and Ornithological and Natural History Society (so reliable) is the problem I could reference the original sources but I need a little time - I'm currently on holiday returning Friday next week. I've intermittent mobile WiFi access which isn't great for editing. The close paraphrasing mentioned in the DYK review was fixed. Sorry about this, I wrote the article in the early hours of the morning. I hope I'm not being accused as 'being told' to write this article by Fram... Anyway, I hope all an AGF and wait till I get back to reply properly. Thanks, --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 10:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide secondary sources which are about the path, and not standard "news" about its restoration, that would be much appreciated. Although I agree with Fram about the referencing here, I never intended to imply that you were told to write this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I assume GF. What else can one assume when an employee of the Government of Gibraltar uploads pictures of QRcodes for nonexistent Wikipedia articles, and that hours later another editor starts writing said article. Of course this has nothing to do with things like promotion and tourist attraction[23]. Well, one can also assume that they jumped the gun a bit here, at least. It would be better of course if you can provide more sources, but they will also need a lot more on the footpath to actually establish notability. So far, it has none. Fram (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not assuming GF - this is a straight-up bad-faith accusation, yet more in the same strain of bullshit conspiracy theories that you and a handful of other dead-enders have been peddling for nearly a year now. Stop it now. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it is just a coincidence that the Government decides to include QRcodes for non-existent articles, and that hours after an employee of that Government posts photos of the path and the QRcodes, the article is created (and later DYK'ed)? We now let the Government (or Board of Tourism) of Gibraltar decide which articles to write, and when? But promotion has obviously nothing to do with it? Stop it now indeed. Fram (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here we go again with the bullshit conspiracy theories. When the QRcodes were being printed, my Tunnels of Gibraltar article (which is also QRcoded) didn't exist in mainspace either but was in preparation. The uploader (he's a teacher, archivist, and noted local historian - hence his involvement in writing the inscriptions - not a member of the tourist board) was aware of this and QRcoded it in advance of the article reaching mainspace. None of these articles were written for any promotional purpose or at the instigation of the tourist board and claims to the contrary are lies. Prioryman (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you both cut back on the vitriol against each other, which has been going on for over a year? Fram believes these articles are inherently promotional, and almost nothing is likely to change his/her mind. Prioryman insists that there is no undue promotion going on, a position which he is about as likely to change as I am to climb Mount Everest on an emu while wearing a tinfoil hat. Let's just follow behavioural guidelines, AGF on Gibmetal, and give him/her a chance to add some further sources (if they are available). Gibraltar(pedia) has been fought enough, and across a whole bunch of battlefields which weren't meant for the purpose, and now it's time to focus on this article and (here) its notability or lack of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are actually not bad, considering the fact that it's a footpath. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources would that be? Fram (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vox Gibraltar / Gibraltar TV / Gibraltar Chronicle. Just dealing with the renovations yes, but why is that important? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources which seem to be worth considering here in terms of evaluating notability are "Upper Rock pathway renovations almost complete". Your Gibraltar TV, Reformed path for Devil's Gap". Gibraltar Chronicle and "Devil's Gap Footpath Renovation". Vox Gibraltar News. Each of these sources provides only a paragraph on this walking path, and is focused on its recent renovation. As such, I don't think that notability is established. If there's scope to upmerge this to an article on walking paths in Gibraltar or whatever that would be OK in my view, but as a stand-alone it doesn't seem viable. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the surface the article looks fine, but examining the sources I do think Fram and Crisco have a point about lack of secondary sources. Is "Your Gibraltar TV" a reliable source? Generally I'd consider a historical path or road which has been subject to government restoration as notable, I have no problem with the existence of the article or a code in Gibraltar for it, but I'd like to see a few more reliable sources secondary demonstrated here.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't nearly every road in the world been "subject to government restoration" at some point? In many countries, construction, restoration and maintenance of roads and paths is one of the tasks of a (local or supralocal) government. Fram (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. Street restoration happens in Sioux City, Iowa, for example, almost every week. Even though it usually isn't needed and is very annoying, but still. SL93 (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a great point, I had envisaged what Fram would say, which is why I added the word "historical", meaning a road of historical significance which is considered important enough for making a heritage site or restoration. It is disputable how much significance this particular path had. If this is really notable, it'll have coverage in secondary sources.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be said that it was restored because it was historical, rather than being a common thing for all roads/paths/trails? SL93 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)As far as I can tell, the recent work on the path was not a restoration (in the "return to its historical state") but a simple "rejuvenation", making it more accessible for tourists, without much care for preservation or reconstruction of the historical path (if such a thing existed). If there are sources that make it clear that this path has historical significance (beyond being on a map of 100 or 200 years ago), then of course the whole notability aspect changes. But the Via Augusta it ain't. Fram (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I want to see if anybody can find anything further first though..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with but 153 hits on Google it is not even remotly notable. The only sources are about the path being renovated, how does it even pass the GNG? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about a footpath being renovated for tourist-attracting reasons, that's standard government fare. What isn't standard though is using the Wikipedia to prop up a government's tourism bureau, so hopefully this is just the first shot across the bow of a salvo that finally sinks the Gibraltar-pay-for-exposure shtick. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. Clearly not notable in its own right, but it is a plausible search term and a small amount of detail about the renovations could be included in that article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sourcing concerns and notability, although I'd also support a merge as mentioned by DA above. Intothat darkness 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns: I too get nothing but some governmental sites and some strictly routine news notices about working being done on it. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is the problem. The local TV website doesn't cut it. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not appear to be a historic or noteable footpath. The article itself concedes that a different route was used in prior times, and much of the discussion is about historic routes other than this particular path. The blurb cited in the article from the construction company hired to do the recent renovation work also seems to show that this particular footpath was nothing more than an overgrown danger zone until recent government efforts to turn it into a tourist attraction. The company notes: "The path was fully overgrown in the past years and it was not a safe environment. In a short time-frame we managed in close liaison with the Government of Gibraltar to turn the footpath to a nice tourist attraction." A small town newspaper (Gibraltar has a population of 29,752) reporting on routine municipal repairs to a local footpath is not enough to deem the footpath encyclopedically notable in my opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative proposal to merge with Upper Rock Nature Reserve also seems plausible. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve per The Devil's Advocate. (And have a redirect so the QRpedia code remains useful) TheOverflow (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some independent sources, mostly referring to the rock chasm called "Devil's Gap" and mentioning in passing walking up a trail through it: earliest mention of "Devil's Gap" path is in a 1777 travelogue; 1811. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources in the article, the path in use in 1777 is NOT the path that is the subject of this article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability/sourcing concerns raised by Fram and second the concern expressed by Tarc. Re TheOverflow, we're not required to maintain the functionality of third-party interfaces. It was a bad idea in the first place for those codes to be placed before this article was bedded in. If it is deleted, I hope the parties responsible will learn a lesson from that. — Scott • talk 17:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that there is no requirement to maintain the functionality of third-party interfaces (and I note that the third party interface remains not transferred to WMUK despite several announcements), but nevertheless I think the Gibraltar Government has acted in good faith, will be inconvenienced if functionality is removed and it's not really going to hurt things to have a redirect. It would probably be a good idea if those involved in the coordination of Gibraltarpedia QRpedia codes and articles let the Government/tourist board know of the issue, and that they waited until articles were in a stable form (and weren't likely to end up at AFD) before providing QRpedia codes. TheOverflow (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Gibraltar government nor the tourist board had anything to do with the article or the QRcode linking to it. The information panel from which the article is linked (at a Wikipedian's suggestion) was produced by the Gibraltar Heritage Trust, an independent charity. Prioryman (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then let us not inconvenience the Gibraltar Heritage Trust. Hopefully, the Wikipedian who arranged the QRpedia code will let the Trust know of the issue. TheOverflow (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry (well, not really) but fuck the Trust. This encyclopedia has no obligation to prop up the business models of outside interests. If they are so hell-bent on linking a QR code to an informational page, perhaps someone should tell them that MediaWiki is free software, and that they are quit able to set up their own wiki articles. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "business model" involved - it's a public footpath freely accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without charge. The Trust isn't a commercial body, doesn't have any responsibilities for tourism that I know of, and doesn't gain or lose a penny from the QR code being present or not present or working or not working. Ironically, it would actually be Wikipedia's own reputation that would be hit if a QR code produced a 404 - that would just show Wikipedia up as being flaky. Fortunately that's not going to happen in this case, but if you're voting against this article just to spite a noncommercial charity group which isn't deriving any benefit of any sort from it, that's really not a sensible thing to do. Prioryman (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the technicalities of so doing, but perhaps the divert could be done at QRpedia/qrwp rather than Wikipedia? The Trust would not be inconvenienced, many of the concerns above would be addressed, the QRpedia folks demonstrate that they're not simply pumping out QRpedia codes - close to a win/win/win?. TheOverflow (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how it works, I'm afraid, so I can't comment on that suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, guys, but I just don't really see the notability as being there. It's just not quite strong enough. The content in this article would be much better placed in a broader article, whatever form that would take. Silver seren^C 07:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andreas JN 466 06:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve per The Devil's Advocate and others (retaining redirect). The target should be an additional paragraph under Tourist Attractions. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and also shameless attempt to use WP for promotion. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - minor coverage in local sources does not establish notability. I see no problem covering it w/i the park's article though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively Delete, or minor Merge or Redirect to Upper Rock Management Plan. Not notable for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG as nothing indicates substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve with redirect per The Devil's Advocate, TheOverflow and others above. --Bejnar (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Destination sign. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tram scrolls

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

This has been designed to look like a historical article about tram scrolls but was seemingly created by someone with a conflict of interest (who sells vintage tram scrolls) and then edited extensively by someone else who was paid to so do. All of the "references" included in the article were actually press releases and advertisements directing traffic to a single sales website. I've removed those. It may well be that the subject itself is notable (though I'm struggling to see how) but the history of this article is entirely muddied by COI and paid editing. Stalwart111 06:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Destination sign, to which 'Destination blind' already redirects. These and 'Bus blind', 'Subway sign' all seem to be the same thing in different varieties of English. One article is enough, quite apart from the CoI / ADV aspect of the current article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with that at all - seems very sensible. Stalwart111 13:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Destination sign, as per Chiswick Chap above. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 23:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, without copying the paid advert. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Contact me if you want this userfied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Roma (short film)

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

Contested PROD.Lacks significant coverage,and fails WP:NF. L smll 06:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the film's IMDb listing insufficient to establish notability?

- Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it meet any criteria of WP:NF.~~There is no IMDB listing in WP:NF.~~I think just listing in IMDB is not sufficient.After a web search,I didn't find any significant coverage.And in IMDB,there is only a very brief introduction about this film.L smll 07:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not something that can show notability. It's actually something that's sort of discouraged in general as even a WP:TRIVIAL source since anyone can sign on an edit it. You can read more about this here. The type of thing that would give notability would be something along the lines of a review in a newspaper or coverage in a magazine considered to be a WP:RS. Sources such as this one by the student paper for the university the director attends would be seen as a primary source since she's a student there. On a side note to anyone coming in, this is a student film. What this means to the article is that student films rarely gain coverage enough to merit inclusion. Sometimes they do, but that's usually years later when the director achieves notability in other formats. Even then, it's more the norm that films created during college get largely ignored or only briefly mentioned. So far I'm not seeing where this short gained that much notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to ask, given the extremely limited coverage of the film... are you the film's director or someone that knows her or is associated with her? If so, you will probably want to look over WP:COI to see why it's usually highly discouraged for you to create an article for something that you might have a conflict of interest over. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is ultimately a non-notable student film. As I said above, 99.9% of all student films will lack the notability necessary to pass notability guidelines for films. This includes films by directors that are extremely notable. There just isn't enough out there to merit an article at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddogsix (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 July 2013
Delete I went ahead and watched the complete movie and found it a surprising well made student film. A real pity the filmmakers did not do more to get this seen. After watching the film, I went so far as to address some article issues with format, style and sourcing,[24] but feel its limited coverage fails WP:NF. Allow back if and only when more becomes available.. and IF it comes back, it should be under the proper title Nova Roma (film). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it could/should be userfied by the original editor if they showed interest? I have no true problem with this being userfied by an interested party. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it being userfied if requested. The film is an unsung treasure. I left him a note explaining through my example how the article could be improved, suggested a course of editorial study, and told him to ask for it if he wishes it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Brown (author)

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

Doesn't seem to have received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. All of the potential sources I could find were press releases/statements from the subject's own site about her own book or about her own work. Stalwart111 05:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly suspect there is some paid editing involved here given the obvious (to me anyway) links between the creator and subject. Stalwart111 05:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Delete I tagged this a few weeks ago and, despite many edits by the original contributor, including reduction of the promotional tone, the main notability concerns remain. The article tells much on the subject's upbringing and family background (unreferenced) but that is not evidence of notability. In terms of WP:AUTHOR, the subject's book is published through ASA Publishing Company whose website offers various publishing packages, and I am not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the promotional tone of the article, there just isn't enough notability to warrant keeping this page. There are plenty of primary sources, but nothing that would show notability. I would like to also throw in my suspicion that this is paid editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any notability requirements; no RSes. Reads like a vanity piece. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Twilight Zone

NOTICE: The link to this AfD discussion is not showing up on the article's page. It's only fair that it should. Can someone fix that? Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's there and it's working for me. Did you click on the link itself? There's nothing in the history to suggest it was removed. Stalwart111 23:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's bloody weird. It works, but it's red. Why is it a redlink if it works? Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure mate. Cache or cookies issue maybe? Stalwart111 04:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check and see if the link is red for you? I've cleared my cache a few times, but the link is red even though it is active. Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I fixed it by editing the page -- something about a line-break or extra space, which I removed. It doesn't show up as an edit in the History but what I did makes the link blue now. Weird. Alternate universe stuff. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spooky stuff - glad you got it sorted out though! I still have no idea what that could have been about. Maybe the fact that I used WP:Twinkle to do the nomination? Stalwart111 01:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Secret ^account 04:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe L Da Vessel and Melodic

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 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 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 05:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMTJ

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

Non-notable designation for a member of a non-notable organization. The Knights Templar ceased to be a meaningful organization over 700 years ago; any of the dozens of modern organizations using the name would need to demonstrate their own notability, which this one has not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG,no secondary sources.L smll 07:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability for this designation by an organisation whose page is itself a redirect to a section in another article. AllyD (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rousseau Metal

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

Advertisement and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Inventions seem enough for notability. I would ask for better sources of notability and require some of the hype removed, but leave the basic article. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What inventions? The Banner talk 22:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Not seeing much out there other than a Hydro Quebec newsletter article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it fails WP:CORP in general. All the web sources on the article either don't exist or fail WP:CORPDEPTH. ALH (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 23:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Alexander Kazemi

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

Non-notable actor; has played a handful of minor roles in non-notable films. Possibly vanity/promotion article. There are five links in the references section; two are dead, one does not mention the article subject, and one is IMDB. Holdek (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's look at WP:NACTOR shall we: "...significant roles in multiple notable films..." NO; "...large fan base or a significant "cult" following", NO; "...unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment," very much NO. My only question is: How did this article survive for 3 years? -Wine Guy~Talk 22:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates pretty much every guideline we got: general, specific, BLP... p b p 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is 'keep' - per WP:RELIST Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul II High School in Tarnów

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

There is nothing in this stub to say why this particular high school is notable. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per longstanding consensus that verifiable high schools are permitted to have Wikipedia articles. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean that all high schools are inherently notable if only it can be verified that they exist. This is not what out notability guideline for organizations says: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. (...) When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." — Kpalion^(talk) 07:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the problem is, that as currently entitled, we can't verify the existence of this school, and the history section makes no sense. Was this high school renamed recently? Bearian (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you expect sources to use the English translation of the name of this school? Of course we can verify the existence of this school by simply following the link to the Polish Wikipedia article and its references, or by searching for sources such as this one. And the school has obviously been renamed at some point, because John Paul II didn't take that name until 1979, and no school in Poland would have been named after a Catholic leader before 1989. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd assume good faith on the printed sources. The question, however, is not whether the school exists, but whether its mere existence makes it notable. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As can be seen from the titles of the print sources listed in the article, the school was known by the name of Stanislaw Anioł (whose Polish Wikipedia biography is here) until 2005. The linked Polish Wikipedia article on the school includes a history of the difficulties of its formation in the 1940s. No reason to go against normal consensus on notability of high schools. AllyD (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the general convention of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Verifiable high schools are usually automatically considered notable. TBrandley (T • C • B) 07:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have verified this school's notability online, with the help of User:Kpalion and Google Translate. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisette Rene Sacks

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of subject, per ticket:2013070810013541. Reason given is interference with current professional activities. Notability seems to be minimal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm nervous of people asking to be removed from wikipedia for vague commercial reasons, but in this case it's a clear delete. Apart from an interview with a local newspaper, none of the sources mention her or vertify the claimed facts. I couldn't even find confirmation of the 2009 Addy awards that the article mentions on the AAF website. GDallimore (Talk) 12:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly in line with GDallimore. We generally don't allow subjects to "opt out" of Wikipedia unless they are only marginally notable. This subject falls into that category, in my view, and so deleting the biography is justified. You might almost have a tough time making a case for notability if this were at AFD in any other context but we don't seem to have people leaping out of the shadows to make such a case. Stalwart111 07:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this was brought to AfD purely on grounds of notability, I don't think it would stand a chance. Lack of reliable sources, failing WP:BIO. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Philpott

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

Fails WP:GNG and only source is primary from the BBC. Quick Google did not turn up reliable sources. Tek022 | _Comments? 04:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A man wih a media job but no evidence of individual notability. AllyD (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Levdr1lp / talk 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Finnegas (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le Quang Hung

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays in the V-League, which is confirmed as not fully pro, making this insufficient for WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I contested it because I'm uncomfortable with non-AFD deletion of someone who plays in his country's top league. Such a person is more likely than other footballers to get enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, so we should permit discussion before deleting. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that he meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Street Fighter IV#Ultra Street Fighter IV. Recommendation to wait until more substantial and verifiable information about the game is reported. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Street Fighter 4

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. Search Ultra Street Fighter 4 Announcement Trailer on Youtube. --Mpolo44 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better: Ultra Street Fighter IV Will Be Out In 2014 --Mpolo44 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Article was clearly created only to round already existing redirect at Ultra Street Fighter IV to Street Fighter IV#Ultra Street Fighter IV; nothing here the Arabic number article tells us that the redirected Roman numeral one doesn't. Nate • (chatter) 05:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Article should be created only when the amount of content merits it. Currently it obviously does not. Redirect to Super_Street_Fighter_IV:_Arcade_Edition#Ultra Street Fighter IV. --uKER (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per UKER. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the same place as the alternative title Ultra Street Fighter IV. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Very little content known yet, easily fits as a subsection at one of the other Street Fighter 4 articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a significant update containing five new characters, one of which is completely new, six new stages, numerous balance changes, and all of the past DLC costumes included. If the Arcade Edition can have its own article, when all that contains is two new characters and two hidden characters made immediately playable, as well as numerous balance changes, then it makes no sense to delete this article. Christopedia (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the amount of content available about Arcade Edition. Now check the amount of content offered by the Ultra article. There's your reason for one deserving an article and not the other. When there's enough to be written about it, it shall get its article, but not before that. --uKER (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course. There are already About 4,620,000 results for the game, including lots of reliable sources. --Niemti (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 million people reporting the game will be made doesn't mean it needs an article. From WP:CRYSTAL, "While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." Can it be any clearer? --uKER (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there are already tons of commentaries, responses, predictions, wish-lists, etc. Can I be any clearer? Also its now 200,000 more (after just few hours). And how to make an article about a fighting game update in development? Check out 100% mine Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate. --Niemti (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Only reliable info is its recent announcement and early 2014 release estimate. More info will come out in time, but until then, let's stay summary-style. If the DLC/standalone release is enough to build its own article (and it likely will be), break it out at that time. czar · · 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M&M's Break' Em

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

Unnotable video game, didn't receive high critical acclaim. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per About.com, IGN, GameZone, and Polygamia. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a game in it's own right. It may not have a lot of info now but that is the point. Now we have a place to add more. Like most games that are all sighted on here, it will have the relevant info after it is amassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WandererTheLost (talk • contribs) 10:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's another source at Impulse Gamers. I'm not familiar with the website (Looks like WP:VG/S isn't either.) but I thought I'd throw it out there and let others decide if it helps. Currently neutral on this; the sourcing is weak, but its debateable, one could argue it meets the GNG. The nomination statement about it not achieving "critical acclaim" is irrelevant though, that's not a requirement for a game to have an article... Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Barely scrapes by as far as sources to meet the WP:GNG. Looks like a terrible, poorly conceived, marketing-gimmick of a game, but that doesn't matter, the coverage does. Since the game was widely published on a very popular video game platform, there's likely to be other sources out there too, like in print magazines. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep votes all focus on things that are not relevant to Wikipedia's rules for assessing notability, either of people in general or of academics in specific. If the person becomes more widely recognized in the future, I am willing to provide a userspace copy for others to draft an article that meets those guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Krishna Sharma

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

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}}.

I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources *about* subject. SPat ^talk 01:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article main contributor seems to be pretty related with its subject, also the article fails to establish notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has provided accessible, verifiable sources 1) Delhi College of Arts and Commerce 2) Comparative Literature Association of India 3) Five links to articles by the subject of the article. I believe these provide robust support for keeping this article. SUSHRUTA (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<comment> Added one more reference listing Vasant Sharma as an Associate Professor.SUSHRUTA (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Vasant Krishna Sharma is the Secretary of CLAI and a member of ICLA which can be easily verified from their website. He is also a prolific writer as evident from his published article in Indian Express- the national daily newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.26.250 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — 120.59.26.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP Prof. Sharma is a well known teacher and academic. He often writes in a humorous vein about matters which are essentially serious. His interest in comparative literature was instilled in him by his teacher Prof. Sisir K Das. At present he is an associate Prof. at Delhi college of arts and commerce and the secretary of Comparative Literature Association of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.145.44 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — 180.215.145.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - From what is written in the article, I do not think the Professor is notable enough to merit an article.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has reliable sources and is a valuable addition to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.118.209 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC) — 24.130.118.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. The information about his antecedents with the WP:PEACOCK terminolgy, which I have removed, is superfluous in this case, as notability cannot be inherited per Wikipedia. This man has to be judged on his own merits. Writing some articles for the same newspaper does not, in any way, make him a prolific writer. An established or notable academic or professor should and would have produced quite a few acknowledged scholarly works by the age of 65 or the time of retirement. I see no evidence of this, backed by reliable third party sources. The primary sources cited in the article can be discounted, as he is doing what most people in his position do at colleges or universities viz. getting on with his job. Being an office-holder at some associations or societies is par for the course in such jobs, depending on one's interests and hobbies. This, too, does not make him notable. Seems to fail WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment This article was tagged regarding its sources. It had several reliable, verifiable sources and I have added one more. The discussion should be over at this point.SUSHRUTA (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC) -- Striking second Keep vote by user who voted above. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to remind everyone that we need reliable sources that prove the subject's notability. All the sources that have been added till now just say that the subject is a lecturer at Delhi University and that he is a member at a couple of questionably notable societies. These facts, while true, are NOT enough to satisfy notability under Wikipedia's general notability guideline or notability for academics. The fact that he is the author of several articles doesn't help. What we're looking for is something like a major biographical article about the subject in a reputable newspaper, or proof that he has won some sort of prestigious award by a notable national or international society. Hope that helps steer the discussion. SPat ^talk 16:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment Just wanted to reiterate that the original issue was lack of sources. I also added a reference showing that he is an Associate Professor at the University of Delhi. Also he is an academic and humorist.SUSHRUTA (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<comment> Expanding on what I wrote previously, Vasant Sharma is a humorist with many articles published in a widely circulated Indian newspaper. This alone merits his inclusion in Wikipedia. I really do not know what is the argument at this point.SUSHRUTA (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sushruta, please note that you shouldn't add "Keep" before more than one comment, as it can look like you're !voting twice. Also, AfD discussions generally continue for 7 days before closing. Finally, merely being a professor and having published articles in newspapers is not necessarily enough for the person to have a WP article; you should read WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG, and see if you can add enough evidence to show that he meets one or both of those criteria. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. I note a multitude of multiple vote and spas. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Professor Sharma is an accomplished teacher and mentor who has done significant contribution in bringing positive changes to sensitive subjects such as corruption, bureaucracy and ineffective political system by his effective writing. His profile is a refreshing and valuable contribution to Wikidedia. Please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.22.218.2 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — 157.22.218.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The subject clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC, and there is no indication that any other notability guideline could apply (such as WP:GNG). Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete (and open to convincing) -- I don't see the subject passing WP:ACADEMIC, but Indian Express is a significant newspaper in its 80th year of publication. Being a regular columnist may almost be enough for GNG, but there needs to be at least some external (outside Indian Express) recognition of the significance of his columns. Find that and I can be convinced to change to Keep. But the number of new authors contributing keeps here does not help the cause. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Joseph Dandurand

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

Dandurand lacks notability. This is just like previously deletet articles. Just like previous versions at Jeff Duran, Jeff duran and Jeffrey Dandurand this page fails to show how this man is notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Duran. Just like the reposting at Jeffrey Dandurand this reposting appears located to avoid attention. He does now widley use the name Jeff Joseph Dandurand. Acting career shown is two very minor parts as Kid #1 and Boy (uncredited) in single episodes of a >111 episode series The Wonder Years and a small part that was not used in No Man's Land (1987 film). This falls miles short of WP:NACTOR. This article tells us his comedy career does not make him notable, that he was not good enough to get booked. His film making career involves making a vanity documentary and some wishful thinking about an unmade biopic. His songwriting and production is for self released mixtapes and unreleased songs. Nothing notable. His time in a band fell short of notable becuause the band didn't like him and kicked him out, falling short of WP:BAND. Dandurand lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has a lot of sources but none are reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. A mix of gossip sites, imdb, primary, listings and a wikipedia mirror. A seach found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Endorse nominee and also Salt. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to speedy, the main contributor seem to not be aware of WP policies and guidelines, I see promotional gains for maintaining such an article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4, G5 or G11 (take your pick) then salt every single possible variation of this spammer's name and edit-filter/blacklist his website. This sh*t again?!? Obvious recreation of self-promotional spam deleted about 10 times under various names, created each time by the accounts of a prolific sock-puppeteer whose latest account (that created this article) started editing only 4 days after his last batch of sock-puppets got indeffed in January. Managed only ~~6 edits~~ 5 edits not related to the subject before the promo-spam started again and every edit since has been about the subject and his "work". Give me a break. Stalwart111 02:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in relaible independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the person responsible for this article. I linked reliable sources and feel his work with Britney Spears and in media is credible and verifiable. The subject and article is not a repost and is not linked to the unfortunate mess of previous suggested articles. There are countless articles in Wikipedia that supply less credible sources than Jeff Joseph Dandurand. Keep. Seargentgommer (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesn't inherit notability from Britney Spears and the fact that other stuff exists (that might be in worse shape) is no reason to keep this article. And what, your account just happened to appear 4 days after the last ones were blocked and made only 5 non-Dandurand-related edits before falling back into Dandurand-spam-land (every single one of your edits since has been about the subject). We'll assume good faith, but we're not morons. Stalwart111 05:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I agree this article is worthy of deletion, none of the speedy deletion reasons are valid. Therefore, I have declined those speedy nominations and restored the AFD template that was improperly removed.

Article does not qualify for G4 because the prior deleted versions are substantially different.
Article does not qualify for G5 because there is no evidence, even behavioral, that sockpuppetry is in play, and it is bad form to nominate for G5 until sockpuppetry is confirmed. I've G5-deleted articles in the past, but this one didn't pass.
Article isn't unambiguously promotional in such a way that a complete rewrite would be required if it were kept.

That said, the article doesn't seem to establish notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical discussion.

That's fine - your call. I moved your comment to the end because I didn't nominate the article for speedy deletion, nor did I remove the AFD template or close this discussion (though I reverted the close) so an indented response to my comment wasn't really in the right place. The SPI is still open so obviously it's not ready for G5 yet. I still disagree that its substantially different to deleted versions - remember there were about 10 "deleted versions" and this uses the same sort of language and the same sources. But I obviously don't have access to those versions so making a case is difficult. I'm happy for this AFD to continue until the article is deleted and salted. Whatever works. Stalwart111 03:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to list them? I know of 2 other deleted versions (including the subject of the last AFD), and they were substantially different. If others are substantially the same (especially if created by now-blocked socks) I'm happy to reconsider deleting per A4 or A5. I wish I had a way to search for deleted articles with similar names, but unfortunately one must rely on the corporate memory of those who were involved. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the tough part is remembering them all which is why, as I say, letting the AFD run may be the best option. I know there were three versions deleted at Jeff Duran though I think two were exactly the same, created less than a day apart. There were two deleted at Jeffrey Dandurand though I think they were the same. Whether they were also the same as the ones at the other title, I can't recall. There was a redirect deleted at JJ Star though I seem to recall someone trying to use of the redirects as a new article title after one of the main ones was deleted. There were also a few userspace versions that were deleted I think, though I couldn't tell you which socks had them or what they were called. There were also various versions tagged for deletion then amended while various deletion processes were underway. Part of the current article is also similar to what I can remember from Cursed Since Birth which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cursed Since Birth and I think it came back under a couple of titles too. The reality is that it doesn't take much to make an article different enough from a previous version to avoid the "sufficiently identical" requirement of G4 (a flaw of G4, really). I still think there is plenty of evidence to suggest the latest username is yet another sock-puppet and even disagreeing with that, I think they are single-purpose enough to justify a WP:NOTHERE block. But AFD is not the place for all that. If there's nothing in any of those deleted versions, let's just let this run to its almost inevitable WP:SNOW close. Stalwart111 06:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I hatted this because it doesn't have much to do with the AFD itself. Stalwart111 06:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of WP:RS. Impressed that he was Kid #1 on Wonder Years though. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GarbleCard

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

There just doesn't seem to be enough coverage out there for this to pass WP:GNG. The coverage of the product is from the product's own website. Everything else relates to other associated issues and none of them mention the product. Stalwart111 01:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly suspect there is some paid editing involved here given the obvious (to me anyway) links between the creator and company. Stalwart111 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - Endorse nominee, article fails GNG, and it lacks media coverage, the article also seems to be related with paid editing which is strictly against WP:Policies and WP:Guidelines. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some content and references which are not meet Wikipedia rules. Is this page still considerd for delation? Yanis ahmed (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you removed content but didn't add any sources that might allow this subject to meet our inclusion guidelines. Stalwart111 05:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- In this article, every related facts are described and added references to the facts. This is a new security equipment and concerned with the facts discussed in the article. Please consider the facts and KEEP the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eragon.raju (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this particular device has attained notability - which is unsurprising as their website indicates they are taking pre-orders and seeking crowdfunding [25]; at best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another thing - can any Elance users contributing to this debate declare whether they have any WP:COI? AllyD (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The RFID skimming article covers this concept, and this particular product appears to be non-GNG. Suggest simply mentioning it in the skimming article with a link to their page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article per WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum (journal)

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

non notable journal produced by the students in a single graduate department, publishing almost entirely each others' work. The award is for a student produced journal, DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, fails GNG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lavery

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that This page clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shouldn't have to explain. Fails notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of playing in a professional team, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. As for the PROD, with the best will in the world ArcticKangaroo, if you don't know how to properly contest a PROD you probably shouldn't be reviewing AFC submissions. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osita Henry Chikere

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Per WP:NFOOTY you actually have to appear in a match to be notable - having signed a contract with a club in a fully pro league is not enough. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence he meets notability. The two references just list basic info - one is his club site and the other is Transfermarkt, which is not generally considered to be reliable/have sufficient overview. Eldumpo (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KAIZEN Realty

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

I can't see how this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. There's one article about the company and an associated interview published by the same local business journal on the same day (part of the same story). Beyond that, everything I could find was either from the company (press releases on PRWEB) or a passing mention of one of the company's agents. Stalwart111 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly suspect there is some paid editing involved here given the obvious (to me anyway) links between the creator and company. Stalwart111 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for a run-of-the-mill local company. The local business journal articles are inconsequential -- the kind of coverage that many local businesses get. If somebody writes about this company as an innovator that is emulated by other real estate brokerages, then it could become notable, but I don't see that now. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references included to the article for the company is from reliable resources. The company is a renounced Real Estate Brokerage company. The website of the company reflects the everything clearly about the structure of the company. There is nothing written as advertisement of the company. The journal is an independent source that I have researched about the company.This complete the notability of the article. One thing to strongly protested, you mentioned that the edit is a paid one. You can not state anything like this without any evidence. Please consider the facts about the article and KEEP this one.Eragon.raju (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To meet WP:CORPDEPTH, a company must have received coverage from multiple reliable sources, not a single local business journal. I have posted a note on your talk page about the paid editing/conflict of interest. Needless to say, the "evidence" is available to anyone doing the standard requisite WP:BEFORE-related searches for this and your other articles. Stalwart111 05:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company going about its business, but no evidence found (beyond the Memphis Business Journal material discussed above) that it is notable. AllyD (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The informations included to the article about the company is significant and correct. Can you suggest me how to keep the page. I would like to modify the page.Eragon.raju (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit–Murder Inc. feud

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

Non-notable "beef" not covered substantially in reliable sources. I should note that the article lists one source as a different one three times. Beerest355 Talk 02:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Consider possible merge.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of the two sources provided reliable? Rapcentral is only one source which doesn't appear to be reliable, and the other link is a fansite. Beerest355 Talk 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources note the dispute. If it's not independently notable it should be merged/ redirect to 50 Cent feuds. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those seem to be more fan coverage, but I guess they'd work. But since most of the info on the page is fancruft and the noteworthy stuff is already at 50 Cent feuds, I'm going to stand by my vote. Nothing special about this feud that makes it deserve its own page outside of any other feud. Beerest355 Talk 20:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J-Hype

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. No sourcing found; current sources are only passing mentions. Prod removed by author without comment. Charting on iTunes is not an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Wikipedia guidelines are respected, including secondary sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan115 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

What part of "passing mentions" did you not understand? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:MUSIC, not enough coverage about the subject. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable artist. Koala15 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional evil corporations

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

Is it really necessary? Original research, no reliable references... みんな空の下 (トーク) 00:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for having way too broad a criterion. Evil corporations are cliche villains everywhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge with evil corporation. While I disagree that the subject isn't notable (after all, this is just an extension of evil corporation), I would have to say that this is a rather arbitrary and unnecessary list that probably falls under the category of fancruft. Merging is a possible option, but we'd need to cut out at least 90% of this article, as it is completely and utterly unreferenced; just a few examples on the main article would do. We are not TV Tropes, and so we can dispense with this. — Richard BB 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Evil is a matter of opinion for some of the entries. Whilst SPECTRE is undeniably evil (blow nuclear bomb if they are not paid), entries like Rekall trying to sell you good memories, and InGen creating a theme park are questionable.Martin451 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Merge as above - We have a list of everything, now a list of evil corporations, in the near future I could see a list of fictional good corporations coming into light. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
♫Doofenshmirtz Delete Incorporated♫ - This is simply unencyclopedic, and an unnecessary list of information. Referenced info could be merged to evil corporation, but I can't see this being a plausible redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 19 have blue links. Not sure if all of the others are notable enough series to be on the list, but you have 19 that certainly are. Much more useful than a category, since you can easily see what series each one is from. Dream Focus 15:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't think having however many blue links is a relevant point. Just because the individual subjects are notable on their own, it doesn't mean this article is. — Richard BB 19:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there isn't a valid rationale posited in Dream Focus' vote. p b p 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list article comprises related things, and aids in navigation. Some of these things are notable, having their own articles. I don't recall any list ever being kept that had no blue links in it at all. Dream Focus 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's probably the case, but I can think of a lotta lists that did have blue links but were still deleted. This should be one of them p b p 21:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional corporations: What's evil and what isn't is subjective, much the same as the honest politicians discussion we recently had. If there are notable fictional corporations, there should be a list for those that both are and aren't evil p b p 20:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a merge, since nothing there to merge to. Its a rename. Dream Focus 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't want the exact same article as this one at that title I propose. I want an article that has all notable fake corporations, not just the evil ones. Therefore, you wouldn't just be renaming, you'd be significantly altering the content p b p 21:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Evil corporation per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is exhaustive and comprised of original research, so it isn't appropriate in its own article or within the main Evil corporation article. Ideally the evil corporation article should be expanded with prose that will mention a few examples in passing (such as the iconic SPECTRE), but listing out fictional evil corporations just for the sake of it isn't necessary and invites fancruft and original research. Them From Space 20:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list's scope is not clearly definable (as mentioned by Martin451), and thus it should be removed. L Faraone 01:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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