Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 June	23 June >

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sands (American football)

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

Virtually no references provided on a player who lacks the significant, independent, and reliable coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Luchuslu (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator While I am concerned about the state of the article, the fact that some verifiable information exists is acceptable for now. But I would suggest the WP:NFL community should work more toward adding sources for standalone articles. Luchuslu (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having actually played in a regular season game, he passes WP:NSPORTS guideline and we normally keep anyone who has played at that level.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also says on WP:NSPORTS that "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." Also, WP:Other stuff exists isn't a valid reason to keep an article. Luchuslu (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information is easily verifiable--and due to Cbl62's research, is indeed verified. Which also shows that the subject passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 16 sources listed, nine were about his time at West Virginia, five were about him getting arrested for domestic abuse, one was bout a "big hit" on Jerome Simpson in practice and one was about him moving from Miami to Cincinnati after the lockout ended. None of those sources establish any notability based on his stint in the NFL, unless you count being arrested for beating your wife as notable. Luchuslu (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS counts playing in a single play as notable. I see no reason to ignore that guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote the section from WP:NSPORTS for you one more time. "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." The sources in the article and on this AfD page aren't signifiant enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I'm not ignoring WP:NSPORTS, I'm saying Sands only passes part of it. Luchuslu (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has played for the Cincinnati Bengals of the NFL and is presumed notable under WP:NSPORTS. A quick search also reveals that he has been the subject of coverage in the media: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Luchuslu (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as said on WP:GHITS, "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Luchuslu (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you'll need to incorporate those sources into the actual article for them to count toward any notability guidelines. As the article stands, it has one minor source and very little content. Luchuslu (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline and Wikipedia is far from complete. They'll get put in, but it doesn't have to be right this very second. It is enough that the data is verified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies NSPORTS and has sufficient reliable sources to pass GNG. Calidum Sistere 06:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He played in an NFL game, which means he is automatically notable regardless of sources.--Yankees10 02:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that couldn't be farther from the truth. But I am softening up a bit on the WP:GNG issue. However, sources are required for all articles no matter how notable the individual is. Luchuslu (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there should be sources. But as far as I am concerned the only source needed is NFL.com to prove that he played in an NFL game.--Yankees10 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 17:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janakinath Bose

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

Not necessarily notable on his own; notability is not inherited, or rather up-inherited in this case. Merging with Subhas Chandra Bose or redirecting are possible options here too. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a snow keep. This is not a question of notability or inheritance of notability. Janakinath Bose is notable as a leading intellectual and lawyer during his contemporary period let aside that he is still widely remembered with his character being portrayed in various films concerning Subhas Chandra Bose. The Legend of Zorro 17:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Almost all sources mention him as Netaji's father. Shovon (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the Bengal Legislative Council. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be noted here at that time the Bengal Legislative Council covered the area of both West Bengal, Bangladesh and other parts of at least 3 states of India. So that makes him a equivalent or twice important figure of a modern day MP of Bangladesh. I guess it explains why I said snow keep. The Legend of Zorro 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability is enhanced by his son's profile, but there's still plenty of independent coverage to show notability. TheBlueCanoe 02:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brands Hatch race results

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

Violation of WP:NOT#INFO especially WP:NOT#STATS Delete Secret ^account 22:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is far from indiscriminate (events at a specific race track) and there are no stats. Oculi (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not because these are stats - they're not - but because I don't think sports results by venue is quite encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a legitimate WP:SPINOUT of Brands Hatch; this is not "stats" but rather tables of winners at the track, which is, in fact, encyclopedic information. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as Brands Hatch race winners. Some of the red links need to be changed to a link to an article on the competition or at least the season, rather than on one race. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Peterkingiron. I've not come across these articles before, but they are just a list of winners, so have some value. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstone race results

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

Clear violation of WP:NOT#INFO especially WP:NOT#STATS not to mention the possible can of worms a list like this would have if kept, as there are literally hundreds of notable racetracks and road courses many of whom has a better legacy than this track (like Monaco and Indy for two examples) Delete Secret ^account 22:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is far from indiscriminate (events at a specific race track) and there are no stats. Oculi (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not because these are stats - they're not - but because I don't think sports results by venue is quite encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a legitimate WP:SPINOUT of Silverstone Circuit; this is not "stats" but rather tables of winners at the track, which is, in fact, encyclopedic information. The "can of worms" argument is a red herring as most tracks' results are capable of being included within the tracks' own articles; in cases where WP:SPINOUT applies, though, going after the resulting spun-out articles for deletion isn't an advisible thing to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as Silverstone race winners. Some of the red links need to be changed to a link to an article on the competition or at least the season, rather than on one race. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Peterkingiron. I've not come across these articles before, but they are just a list of winners, so have some value. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename and Comment literally hundreds of notable racetracks and road courses many of whom has a better legacy than this track. Hundreds? Silverstone is 66-year-old venue that has been home to the British Grand Prix all of the circuits life and was the original venue of a World drivers' championship event. It has been the leading venue for motor racing in Britain for over 60 years in a nation at the core of the sport. I think it would be difficult to find ten venues with a better legacy than Silverstone. It's like saying there are hundreds of more notable football stadia than Wembley Stadium. I reject the nominators arguement as deeply flawed having failed to approach understanding the subject. --Falcadore (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't spotted that, but it's a very good point, and I am frankly flabbergasted to see the nominator try to make such a point. That said, I could find ten venues with more of a legacy than Silverstone (Monza, Imola, Le Mans, Spa, Nurburgring, Monaco, Brooklands, Hockenheim, Daytona, Indianapolis all have more of a legacy to me) - but it's definitely a major international venue. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VODLY.TO

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

Non-notable website, no secondary sources available to back up the information, full of unreferenced, unencyclopedic material. Considering that this website has a number of clones and domain name disputes, it would be hard to verify anything. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The article does make claims of notability but without additional sources it only serves to promote the site's existence. §everal⇒|Times 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post Hard Rock

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

Unsourced article about a (possibly) emerging music genre that lacks notability and available reliable sources. It's TOOSOON. - Mr X 21:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It feels like this article is about a genre that the creator wishes was in existence. A creative Gsearch came up with nothing, and the band that supposedly falls under this genre (Triumph Over Logic) had their article speedily deleted yesterday. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Genre fails all standards for notability. Might become notable in the future. Andrew³²⁷ 14:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binoculars focus direction

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

Poorly sourced WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of binocular properties. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 21:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - I agree with MrX. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list is based on an attribute of binoculars that isn't significant. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Integrated Services

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

Non-notable; if it actually is notable then sources are very, very difficult to find - this is a difficult phrase to research. TKK ^{bark !} 21:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried searching several ways and could find no coverage of this company in independent, reliable sources. The only sourcing is to the company's web site. And, the article was created by a new user named "Natint" -- presumably a shortened form for National Integrated. That user has never edited another article. It appears likely that the creator is affiliated with the subject and may have an undisclosed COI. Concerns about possible COI are exacerbated by the unsourced and seemingly promotional nature of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As was said above, difficult to search, but no evidence found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. For that matter, I do't even see coerage in unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oboi Me

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting, awards or in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD removed without improvement to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the creator of the article yes, however, this was long time ago when I didn't have much experience in editing music articles. So now I agree, this should be deleted. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 15 June 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 · · 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Argentina, Kiev

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

fails WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. these ones and the one below are just directory listings of mainly non notable ambassadors and addresses.

Embassy of Romania, Kiev
Embassy of Slovakia, Kiev
Embassy of Hungary, Kiev
Embassy of Spain, Kiev
Embassy of Austria, Kiev
Embassy of Israel, Kiev
Embassy of Sweden, Kiev

LibStar (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to the relevant articles (bilateral relations pages, foreign relations pages, list of diplomatic missions pages) if nobody can find anything notable about the buildings (I can't, for one). The majority of the content isn't even about the embassies themselves, in any case. Ansh666 14:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - merge is fine, of course, but I couldn't find one not already mentioned in relevant Foreign relations of... or List of diplomatic missions of... articles. Stalwart111 07:16, 12 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free and open-source course

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

Not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, not notable. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: User has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet (link). czar · · 20:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait It might be notable. It was tagged for deletion too soon after being started, while there was still an underconstruction sign on it. If it appears there might be some possibilities, I think it best to wait a week or so, but certainly at least a few days. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps with different title. Apparently this is a notable concept, even if not always called by this exact name. Here are just a few of many reliable sources I found.
- Namestovski, Zolt; Marta Takacs; Branka Arsovic (2012). "Supporting traditional educational process with e-learning tools" (PDF): 461–464. doi:10.1109/SISY.2012.6339565. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Heussner, Ki mae (12 September 2012). "Google gets into online learning with open-source Course Builder software". GigaOM.
- Marcus, Jon (23 January 2012). "Free courses may shake universities' monopoly on credit". Hechinger Report.
- Barseghian, Tina (28 November 2011). "What Colleges Must Do to Stay Relevant". MindShift.
- Olster, Scott (18 March 2013). "Startups are about to blow up the textbook - Fortune Tech". CNN.

And there are even more articles listed at http://ocw.mit.edu/about/media-coverage/ -- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 14:45, 16 June 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 · · 20:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. We already have the article Massive open online course, and most of the references above seem to refer to the subject of that article. It's not clear that this is a notable variation in any way, given the almost total lack of article content. I get no hits on the acronym FLOSC, nor do any of the references provided refer to it. I get hits for the phrase "free and open source course," but they all refer to "free and open source course management software" such as Moodle (i.e. it's the software that's free, not the course). Some of the references above refer to that, but that's not the topic of this article. This article seems to have begun as a misunderstanding of the topic, and the author seems to have left Wikipedia. There is nothing in the article worth saving. Let it go. -- 202.124.74.3 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Sudo Ghost 01:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recover My Files

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

Article has been deleted three times previously, and if this is anything to go by, is the same exact article. Searching online did not yield any third-party sources that could be used to support the article. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Sudo Ghost 20:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find 3-4 third-party reliable sources about this topic.[2][3][4][5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another potential source.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears to be covered in many books according to Google Books.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you A Quest For Knowledge for making me feel like an idiot. :) I bow to you, for your Google-fu is obviously stronger than mine (although a second look is finding sources that I didn't find the first time). I withdraw my nomination of the article for deletion. - Sudo Ghost 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inu Gundam

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

I found no significant coverage under both the Japanese name and the English name. Only having 2 manga volumes is not impressive either. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails WP:NBOOK --TKK ^{bark !} 18:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 21:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ParkatmyHouse

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

Page mostly serves as an advert for the product 151.225.3.35 (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this AFD to the correct location and added it to the log for June 10. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Has plenty of references but not exactly notable. Does seem like an advert though. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 20:05, 11 June 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 · · 11:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 11:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 11:08, 15 June 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 · · 18:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been the subject of articles in New York Times, Guardian (UK), ABC News (USA), Fast Company, and other publications. That meets WP:GNG. There's also coverage of partnerships and investments with/by major companies and organisations, so the press is more than just "this exists". --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sebastian

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

Yet another inflated resumé, seemingly part of same self-promoting group. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 08:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 08:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 08:11, 8 June 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 · · 11:19, 15 June 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 · · 18:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage. Calidum Sistere 06:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first glance, there appears to be many references from reliable sources (New York Times), but upon examination, the references are being used to support statements in the article that aren't about Sebastian (and thus don't mention her), or the claim isn't actually supported by the article (for example [8] is used to support the claim she " was featured in Levi Strauss & Co" advertising but the article itself makes no mention of Sebastian. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 21:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Camp (film)

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

Non-notable film, can't find secondary coverage, deproded without reason BOVINEBOY2008 22:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: Small wonder the Find sources does not give results for this brand new film, as it is an Arabic language, Egyptian film. I will feel better waiting until an Arabic-reading Wikipedian comes forward to tell us that such as this is not about this Tamer Eissa film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage can be found, but I would not be against it being speedily restored if Arabic sources are found. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my own observations above, and per WP:CSB, WP:NF, and a number of independent Arabic sources speaking about this screened film.[9][10][11][12][13] The article and project will benefit from the attention of Arabic-reading Wikipedians who can properly translate the many Arabic language sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 12 June 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) 16:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As it is an Egyptian film that has not yet had a release in the United States the English version of its title gave LOTS of false positives. Trying more appropriate search parameters per its Arabic title "المخيم", I found that it did have coverage... and while the original version of this article had issues, the article has gone though improvements since the last "delete" vote up above. It still needs attention from Arabic-reading Wikipedians, but what we have now does serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 20 June 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, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot vouch for the Arabic sources, but I shall assume good faith and deem them to be reliable. I think this meets our core notability guidelines but this sure needs a lil' clean-up. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Maxwell (journalist)

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

Does not meet notability criteria per WP:CREATIVE.

All we currently know is that this person works as a district reporter for the BBC and that he gave a presentation at a TED event. Nothing else part from this has been written about him that would somehow justify notability. Working for the BBC itself does not establish notability, neither does a one off TED presentation. Mootros (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I find it hard to belive that local journalists on the BBC staff are notable. It is differnet withg senior reporters and editors, who frequentlky appear on national broadcasts. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 20 June 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 · · 18:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Peterkingiron. Finnegas (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no there there. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural anarchism

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

Neologism. No reliable sources can be found which equate "cultural anarchism" with "social anarchism". The Social anarchism page does not refer to it as an alternate name. Search shows OR findings such as this, this, and this. Taroaldo (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article never equates social anarchism to cultural anarchism. This article should not be deleted. Nashhinton (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never? The original diff on which I commenced the AfD template says "Cultural anarchism, or social anarchism..." You changed "social" to "moral", but the overarching issues remain the same. Cultural and moral anarchism both appear to be neologisms. Taroaldo (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this is a neologism? Many books or articles have already been written on the topic with the possible inclusion of the term cultural anarchism. This Wikibook seems to have cultural anarchism included in its text. See this link: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/What_is_Anarchism%3F/3.6. I actually received my source of "cultural anarchism from that Wikibook, which is a subsidiary website of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashhinton (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the term "social anarchism" from the original draft because I recently discovered that the term has already been taken on another page- See: social anarchism. Nashhinton (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about moral or cultural anarchism, not Anarcho-socialism, or social anarchism, which evidently deals with an entirely different suject. Cultural anarchism is the absence and complete nullification of social and cultural norms and regulations. Thanks for your time. Nashhinton (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually received the source from cultural anarchism from a wikibook in this link. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/What_is_Anarchism%3F/3.6. Again, thanks for your time. Nashhinton (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that establishes that it is not a neologism how? Taroaldo (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please desist the supercilious, snide remarks. Thanks. Nashhinton (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel any remark I've made is "snide". In fact, everything I've said has been said seriously and in good faith. I do not see evidence of sufficient reliable sources to indicate the term has entered widespread usage. You can refer to Reasons for deletion number 6 and also review information on neologisms. Taroaldo (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that the term has not entered widespread usage and is thus a neologism. But the concept has existed for quite some time now. I have also observed that many Wikipedia article entries are neologistic in nature. Utility fogs are an example, I assume. You can proceed the deletion process, if that's what needs to be done. Thanks for your time. Nashhinton (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a neologism but the topic is better done at cultural liberalism or permissive society and the title would tend to be confused with artistic movements such as Dada. Warden (talk) 10:14, 9 June 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) 16:13, 15 June 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 · · 18:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not supported by secondary sources. Besides that it seems like anarchism itself must include what this article calls "cultural anarchism." You can't have no government without no government regulation of culture. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar turns up a few dozen publications containing the phrase, but they don't seem to be using the term in the same sense as this article—they mean "cultural chaos" rather than lack of regulation of culture. I can't find any sources there (or elsewhere) which give significant treatment to the particular idea discussed in this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:19, 1 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. L Faraone 04:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Aarrestad Uldalen

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

I believe this person fails WP:ARTIST. Written like an advert with a selfpublished link. Maybe re-create article when he is more established? Gbawden (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of attained WP:ARTIST notability. The article describes the subject as "young and aspiring ... beginning to make a name for himself"; at best an article is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 11 June 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, L Faraone 13:41, 15 June 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 · · 18:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable per [14], [15], and apparently an additional profile in the print edition of Hi-Fructose - see [16]. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The article meets all WP:N and WP:RS requirements, and per WP:SNOW consensus I am closing this as a keep. Not knowing about an issue makes it impossible to determine the validity of the original proposal. — Ched : ? 18:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Necropolis Company

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

I'm nominating this for deletion due to legal and license compatibility issues. See this discussion for more details. Basically, the article's creator and a member of Arbcom have said that this cannot appear on the main page due to secret legal issues. Taking them at their word, this would mean that due to these legal issues we have to stop this article from getting publicity and being seen by many users. If we don't delete this article it will surely be seen by many users over time, something that we're told has some legal problem. It was also noted in that discussion that this poses licensing issues. We're in essence encouraging people to reuse something that may cause them legal problems without letting them know that. So I think it would be best to delete this until the legal issues are settled. AndreaGail2013 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, unsure why a newly registered user is nominating at AFD on first day, but this is most clearly not a candidate for AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - articles should not be deleted due to unspecified and uncertain legal issues unless required by functionaries with actual knowledge of those issues. Warofdreams talk 18:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and leave it to those who actually understand the issue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I am the member of Arbcom referred to above (although I'm not writing this in my capacity as such). Having been familiarized with the issues, I can state that deleting this article is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data Control & Systems

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

In the eight years that this article has been around no-one has managed to add a single reference. A recent editor and one who was involved with the company makes the rather sweeping statement on the talk page "there are no reliable sources in Zimbabwe". If so, then however significant the company be in the development of the internet in Zimbabwe, it cannot be allowed an article here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The section on "Ownership History" indicates the firm went through a number of names in a short period, between UUnet and a final merge into Econet Wireless, but nothing is found to indicate its individual notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. A viewpoint on Talk:Data Control & Systems is well worth reading: the convoluting history of early ISPs is interesting (and probably under-documented) especially in that country's socio-political context, but broadening or repurposing this article in that direction would be original research. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 8 June 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, L Faraone 13:36, 15 June 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 · · 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few references, but they are not enough to establish notability. However, this google search shows several potential sources, which I can't access because they are behind a paywall. In my opinion, the excerpts visible in the search results establish notability, or at least should give us confidence that newspaper sources probably exist in Zimbabwe. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 · · 19:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entichius

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

There was certainly no exarch named "Entichius". This name (or the variant "Entychius") is non-existent and clearly a mis-reading for "Eutychius" in some old (19th century and older) sources, but even so, the existence of an exarch of this name between the tenures of John Rizocopus and Scholasticus is an unlikely case. In Google Books, the only books mentioning such a man date to the 19th century and are of the A Handbook for Travellers in Central Italy variety, while the main primary source for the exarchs, i.e. the Liber Pontificalis, as well as more modern secondary works such as Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders, the Cambridge Medieval History (both the old and the new), or more specialist works such as the PmbZ don't mention anyone between Rizocopus' death and the arrival of Scholasticus in 713, which is to be expected given the anarchy in the Byzantine Empire at the time. Indeed, the only Eutychius known to have been an exarch was the last holder of the office, who served after 727. Constantine ✍ 09:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what source I was using when I created this article years ago. My guess is Oman, The Dark Ages. Possibly Jules Gay. Srnec (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look again? I'd really like to know what the story with this one is. There must be some reason why some authors interpolated an Eutychius after Rizocopus, after all... Do they draw upon a list compiled by someone in the 17th-18th century, who first made the "mistake"? Is there a primary source that mentions him? I find it really odd that he seems to be completely erased in more recent scholarship. Constantine ✍ 10:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here. It seems to be a certain interpretation of the Liber pontificalis that places Eutychius in the gap between Rizocopus and Scholasticus. Srnec (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, it seems that this "Entichius" is the same as Eutychius, and the interpolation is regarded as unlikely. Hence we can delete the Entichius article and insert the relevant information in the one on Eutychius. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 29 June 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, BusterD (talk) 13:22, 15 June 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 · · 18:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyakam Mohkamsing

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

Article subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:11, 8 June 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) 16:14, 15 June 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 · · 18:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Carosello

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

Non-notable short film. Little to no coverage in third-party sources. Probably created by a WP:COI editor. The article claims that "the video gained recognition on the Viral Video Chart of The Guardian newspaper", but a Google site search of guardian.co.uk does not return any results at all. 4,712 Youtube views is not very viral for a viral video... jonkerz ♠talk 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 20:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I'd AGF on the list of attained awards and say Keep. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)~~ It is now established that the list of "Awards" are not well referenced and do nothing to establish general notability. As such, I now say Delete Concurring with Michael, there may be Swedish sources out there, just maybe. As a second opinion, a redirect/merge to the Ice Hotel article could be suitable. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It did win one non-notable award from an organization "that supports the advancement of moving image arts about the built environment", but it seems like it was only screened at the two other short film festivals, not nominated for any award (see collapsed content below). jonkerz ♠talk 15:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The SMIBE award is the only referenced one. This non-notable festival is not mentioned in WP:RS sources, and its last competition was held in December 2011.

The other four nominations from two different festivals were copied from IMDb, which should be avided per WP:IMDB/RS. Uppsala International Short Film Festival has its own WP page, but the Hamburg festival does not.

I cannot find the film on the Uppsala festival's website:

Uppsala International Short Film Festival "Ice Carosello"
- 10 hits
Uppsala Internationella Kortfilmfestival carosello
- 1 hit, the Swedish Film Institute's (SFI) website, only says it was screened at the festival, not nominated for any award.
site:shortfilmfestival.com "Ice Carosello"
site:shortfilmfestival.com ice
site:shortfilmfestival.com löw
site:shortfilmfestival.com mattias
- 0 hits

We could use the SFI ref to verify that it screened at the festival (it doesn't say if was one of the about 100 films that competed in the international competition section or one of the perhaps 200 total films screened at the festival), but that does not establish notability.

The film is listed on Hamburg International Short Film Festival's website, but so are 311 other films from the 2011 festival, and it doesn't say it was nominated for any award.

In addition to this thin coverage, I've only managed to find a few trivial mentions, mostly in computer generated content. The Swedish interwiki link does not give any notability; like the ENWP article, it was created by an account that happens to use the same name as the film's director.

It did screen at the Upsalla in 2011,[17]but I could not confirm the award. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. This 3-minute ice carving documentary had serious issues with distribution, and while the concepts it used were novel enough for it to gain recognition at couple minor festivals, it did not receive coverage or comentary in reliable sources. I "prettied" the article up, but could not find more than the fact that I did win at least one minor award and the entire three minutes can be seen on YouTube. While Danish and Swedish sources may exist, I could not find even a hint of them. If this changes, fine... but for now WP:NF is failed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With it lacking suitable notability for a separate article, I'd be okay with a redirect to Icehotel (Jukkasjärvi)... the place it was shot and the place where this 3-minute film is shared outside of Youtube. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 9 June 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) 16:15, 15 June 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 · · 18:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949

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

The article is original research from beginning to end. Despite being tagged since March 2008, no references have ever been supplied. It contains no factual information that cannot be found in Irish Free State or Republic of Ireland Act 1948. --Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Not the subject of separate study that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is over the top. Why not just WP:FIXIT? Possibly the title itself is a problem. The article really is on the unresolved issues between the External Relations Act and the Republic of Ireland Act. Was Ireland a republic? Who was the head of state? It was an issue at the time (cf. De Valera's "dictionary republic"). It's a valid topic for an encyclopaedia and there are plenty of sources around it. --RA (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody is willing to fix it, fine. But I don't see any mad rush to do so. The problem is not with the title per se, but with the contention that "the exact constitutional status of the state during this period has been a matter of scholarly and political dispute." No doubt there are plenty of sources "around it", but where are the specific refs for this apparently well-known academic/political dispute? Bear in mind the article has been tagged for five years without a single source being produced. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anyone with a basic understanding of the cessation of the Republic of Ireland from the United Kingdom and Irish identity politics realises that this is of consequence. Just because the topic is also covered elsewhere doesn't make it deletable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not an encyclopedic subject. Content of the article might be if renamed, although I suspect a POV fork here. Carrite (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most definitely an encyclopedic subject and very useful to those who study that period of Anglo Irish history.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appropriate subject matter. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By its very nature this material doesn't fit into either the Irish Free State or Republic of Ireland articles. --Jfruh (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, it is specifically dealt with in Republic of Ireland#1937 Constitution (besides the in-depth treatment of the subject in Republic of Ireland Act 1948). The Irish Free State article is very poorly written, but there's no reason why this material should not fit there. Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: none of the "keeps" so far has addressed the essential question of inherent notability per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list..."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The single ref that has now been added is not to a source that addresses the subject directly in detail. Scolaire (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that finding substantial material on the narrow topic of "Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949" would be small. There's little really to say about it except that it is ambiguous. But that ambiguity (rather than the narrow question of head of state), the causes of it, its effects and eventual resolution, is a fairly well treated topic. There is no obvious title for that ambiguity.

The article could be called, Was Ireland a republic in the years 1936 to 1949?. Or, Relationship between the Irish state and the British monarchy, 1936 to 1949. Or Role of the monarchy in Ireland between the entry into force of the External Relations Act 1936 and the Republic of Ireland Act 1949. Basically, I think an move would address your concerns - but neither do I think one is necessary. The current title is not ideal, but looking at policy on titiles, I think it may be best. --RA (talk) 19:32, 24 June 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) 16:20, 15 June 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 · · 17:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its content is certainly notable. It expands in an encyclopedic manner information touched on elsewhere. It should be retained unless it can be shown that its content has been properly distributed elsewhere, with cross-references and redirects. But preferably, for the use of readers, retain here. Qexigator (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm certainly not saying the article is good; it's not. But deletion is the wrong response to that. It does have too much background that could be trimmed and crosslinked. OTOH there is more to be said, for example, about the problems with accreditation of diplomats, especially during World War II. It's misleading to say "It contains no factual information that cannot be found in Irish Free State or Republic of Ireland Act 1948. " The information in question is in the "After the Irish Free State" section of the former and the "Background" section of the latter. What happened in the intervening years is related to both those articles but properly part of neither, so both should have a WP:SUMMARY section of this separate article. I wouldn't object to renaming the article Irish head of state from 1937 to 1949, starting when the Constitution of Ireland took effect, rather than when the Governor-General of the Irish Free State was abolished; but that's a detail. jnestorius^(talk) 21:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Di Iorio

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

Non-notable footballer, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and hasn't been subject to significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 as copyvio of http://vinodagarwalsspl.com. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Agarwal (Bhajan singer)

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

Indian guru who fails WP:N; the only source is to his personal website and nothing turns up in a WP:SET TKK ^{bark !} 16:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant copyvio of this web site. Ochiwar (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 16:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of haplogroups of notable people

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

The haplogoup (Y (male) or mitochondrial (female)) of a particular person tells us the haplogroup of one ancestor among many millions. Haplogroups are useful for population genealogy and movements, albeit a developing science, but applying to individuals is utter nonsense. Few entries in the article are referenced and fewer entries have mention of their haplogroup in their articles (thankfully). Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the information has no value, but the article needs more oversight. It may only represent a tiny fraction of one's ancestry, but it is relatively easy to measure and interpret which is what makes it useful. Helen (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is now easy to measure, and if we go back 28 generations we can know the haplogroups of 2 of our ancestors out of 270 million-odd (inevitable inbreeding reducing). What possible useful information does that provide? Your 2 haplogroups tell you absolutely nothing about your general ancestry, nor do mine (whatever they may be) and nor do those of anyone we deem notable. The article appears to be have been created by a bunch of undergraduates in dire need of a remedial course in basic mathematics Crusoe8181 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a novice DNA genealogist, pages such as this are essential for new people who know nothing about their ancestry and only know they're related to Otzi or Gediminas (like I am) via DNA. I've visited this page several times over the past year and enjoy rereading these entries, as they never get old or boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.231.62 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this page could be a interesting source of information and therefore Wikipedia would be a good place. Altough there should be a better checktrough of the single entries. I can't follow the argument, that a single lineage out of thousend ancestors is not interesting. If you can follow a lineage and reconstruct information, it is interesting. Wide genetic testing (sequencing) getting cheaper, more and more persons get this type of information (paternal and maternal haplogroups) and do search for "clan members". The resoltion is often very low and unclear, but this will also be improved in the future. Martin 151.62.137.70 (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the wiki articles with enormous amounts of info in them, this one is actually just factual... I don't understand what positive thing could come from deleting it? I'm a J-M205 (J2b1) and along with other ISOGG members find this page of great relevance to our shared research. Please keep this page going! ([User: Kevez9]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevez9 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is usefull, why its marked for deletion is beyond me, im a haplotype mentioned on this page and Wordens are my DNA matches. It was a nice little fact to learn about the Worden person mentioned on this page. Did I learn something about my own ancestry no, did I learn about some new fact about my matching family, yes. If applying a haplogroup to persons is nonsense then what are all dna testees doing? Of many biased and troubled DNA pages on Wikipedia this one is actually innocent, factual and clean. I really believ it should stay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.184.179 (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator The various comments above are precisely the reason this article was so nominated. Sharing a haplogroup with another means simply that you share an ancestor, perhaps many thousands of years ago, hundreds or thousands of generations perhaps, and that one shared ancestor is one of billions (albeit many shared, numerous times). Haplogroups are important for their frequency and distribution among populations and much can be inferred therefrom; the haplogroup of an individual is no more relevant than the length of the little finger on one's left hand (unless one has a query about who one's dad actually was!) Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate, WP:SYN. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful, and not so awful as to blow up. There are plenty of citations, so it easily passes WP:GNG. It is limited in scope as a list should be. My major concerns are more mundane; this article has had its share of vandalism, spamming, soapboxing, and fringe theories. I think that these can be solved through normal editing (and possibly semi-protection). I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but the nomination does not. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator appears to have a personal objection to the notion of, and the interest in, X and Y chromosomal haplogroups. But abstract populations are made up of individual people. Individual examples bring those abstractions to life, and add a human interest. Part of what Wiki can be good at is collating material, and I think that this is quite useful and good to be able to provide a collation of what DNA results have been thought significant enough that they have been noted by WP:RS reliable sources. I also Crusoe's underlying animus against haplogroup results is somewhat misplaced: yes, a haplogroup result only reflects one line of descent; but haplogroup results tend to be quite strongly related to whole populations; and one line of descent can be quite strongly related to other lines of descent (not least through the phenomenon of pedigree collapse, particularly when one is talking about an age of much less widespread travel. When you read in successive entries that Jefferson was from Haplogroup T (comparatively rare in Western Europe), Napoleon had some Haplogroup E1 ancestry (quite strong in North Africa), Niall of the Nine Hostages appears to have established a lineage that may now account for 1 in 12 Irishmen, I think it is entirely legitimate to find some general interest in that. Jheald (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My concerns are not related to the subject of the article but the quality of editing, and that is a general Wikipedia problem. WP:DP: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." As other registered users want to keep it, I will assume there is some interest in improving it. Could David Eppstein please elaborate on his reasons for deletion? Helen (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a mishmash of different types of "haplotype", different kinds of analysis (dig up a dead body, test samples from a live body, combine information from purported descendants), and a very random assortment of people. I don't think it's very meaningful. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article could definitely use some editing; the inclusion of some of the people in the article is questionable, to say the least. However, this is definitely a topic of some import. The nominator's example that haplogroups represent only two of our ancestors in any generation is true, but irrelevant, and the ad hominem attacks are reprehensible. The haplogroup of historic figures is a common subject of academic inquiry. It's helped solve several mysteries like the Jefferson–Hemings controversy, confirmed the identity of the Romanovs' and Richard III's remains, and is routinely used to identify remains recovered from battlefields. This nomination itself is really just silly. Instead of debating whether we should keep the article or not, let's make constructive suggestions on how it could be improved:
- I see no reason to actually include the haplotype for each entry. If someone's that interested, they can go to the original sources referenced.
- One thing we could debate is criteria for inclusion in the article. Is an off-hand mention of a celebrity's haplogroup on TV worth mentioning? I don't think so. On the other hand, does inclusion necessitate a scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal? There are plenty of worthy entries that wouldn't meet that bar—much of this field is being driven by volunteer DNA project administrators. Nathanm mn (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree that the criteria for inclusion needs some enforcement. Lone links to blogs and FamilyTreeDNA projects just aren't good enough sources. Last time I looked I saw a Myspace page and archived emails as sources. I'm pretty sure there's some synthesising of sources going on too: for example one link might show people claiming descent from so-and-so; and another link might claim that a notable person descends from this same particular so-and-so; and thus this list publishes the entirely original factoid that the said notable person bears such-and-such haplogroup. There should be a clear, specific, and reliable source for ever entry. Everything else should be removed. This is an article dealing with science after all.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such criteria would help a lot, thank you for the suggestion. I gave up trying to keep the article clean because I had no back-up and no such agreed criteria and I have no interest in edit warring. Helen (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A useful piece for the reasons enumerated by other editors. But it needs tighter editing and more careful vetting of sources. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although with reluctance. I just deleted everyone listed at Haplogroup I-M438 - no sources, one was a minor Russian actor whose article had one sentence. That list (or lists by sub-clade) was ridiculous as it could be huge. This one maybe is ok but the sources need to be tight and scientific. Brianann's post is excellent, Nathanm raises a very good point also. And David's reasons for deletion are likewise cogent. I'm struggling with some of our articles that use genealogical 'research' badly, trying to make pov points. Take a look at the history of Ishmaelites and the discussion at [{Talk:Ishamelites]] as one example. I strongly feel we need some tight guidelines on types of sources that can be used and even more, how those sources should be used. With the growth of volunteer DNA projects I think the problem will grow without such guidelines, as is shown by the use of forums, blogs, amateur groups (no disrespect meant here, they have their role, just not normally as sources), eupedia.com, etc. as sources. We also need guidelines on what is suitable for an article. For instance, I tried to redirect a (rubbish) article, L147.1 to Haplogroup J-M267#J-L147.1 but was reverted. Was I wrong? It looks as though Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History plans to do this but that hasn't happened yet and I think only one person here belongs to the project. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 1 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 04:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Jayasinghe (professor)

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

non-notable physician. None of his revolutionary achievements seems to have made an actual impact--GS shown his most cited publication has 9 citations. h=5. Very unwisely accepted from AfC in 2011. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims made on the page seem inflated. For example, it claims he developed the process for implanting a heart valve via a vein in the groin, but a brief search suggests most of that work has been done in Belgium. His identification of "Accelerated Atherocoronary Metabolic Syndrome of the Asian Indian" does not seem to have caught on. His academic posts and journal citations do not qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to MelanieN's findings, the WoS search "Author=(Jayasinghe R*) Refined by: Organizations-Enhanced=(GOLD COAST HOSP) Timespan=All years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows 8 papers with a grand total of 3 citations. This does not support the claim that subject "is a world expert on the topic of coronary artery disease". Article is a CV having mostly WP:OR. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Overblown, self prmoting claims. Claims to be inventor of only percutaneous Mitral Valve repair therapy. Their are currently 3 commercial available products, which had no input from Jayasinghe.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikola232 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absurd puffery and patently untrue. The findings of editors above certain cements the case against the retention of an article on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty Binary (talk • contribs) 03:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://eurjhf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/05/17/eurjhf.hfs076.full

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator agrees in their nomination that the subject has had significant coverage, and therefore fails to advance an argument for deletion. No comments in support of deletion. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Introduction to... Elliott Smith

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

while it has been covered by numerous notable publications, I feel the article doesn't establish the importance or significance that would make it worthy of an article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a bit confused by your nomination. Are you suggesting it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources but fails inclusion guidelines for some other reason? Stalwart111 08:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proceedural keep. How the article is currently written isn't really a reason to delete in and of itself. There are multiple sources out there that show notability, such as Metacritic showing 11 reviews for the album. If an article isn't fleshed out enough, flesh it out. If you really believe that the article would be better merged into the main article for Elliott Smith, then it would be better to propose a merge and hash it out there. WP:MERGE gives a good set of directions on how to start proposing a merger. AfD isn't really a good venue for this particular album. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, deficiencies in the article are a matter for editing, not deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. I'm going to have to withdraw this deletion, as the disambiguation appears to be valid now. However, I have some problems with Willie Stokes (caddie), however, this isn't the place to discuss that. Beerest355 Talk 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Stokes (disambiguation)

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

Unneeded - "Willie the Wimp" simply redirects to Willie Stokes and the Bad Santa character is noted there already. Beerest355 Talk 00:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Willie Stokes, Jr. is arguably notable enough to warrant his own article. ~~Disambiguation pages are cheep and should not be deleted arbitrarily.~~ A very simple edit could have added {{other}} to the Willie Stokes article. There are also Willie Stokes, author and video poet;[18] Willie Stokes, executed in 1961 Mississippi under Jim Crow laws;[19] Willie Stokes, executed in 1931 Alabama under Jim Crow laws—first of ten blacks executed—known as the Scottsboro Boys;[20] Willie R. Stokes, author The Testimony of a Black Sheep;[21] who each could warrant an article or at least a redirect to Wikipedia content and a line in this disambiguation page. :) John Cline (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John, what are you smoking? William Hokes was executed in 1931, and he wasn't one of the Scottsboro Boys. Willie McGee was executed in 1951, not 1961. (The title of the book you linked to is The Eyes of Willie McGee.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book title is The Eyes of Willie McGee, the linked content however, describes the Willie Stokes executed in 1961; The Willie Stokes executed in 1931 was related to the 9 Scottsboro boys because he preceded their death and they were forced to listen to his execution. Let me get back to smoking now. :) John Cline (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1931 Willie was named Hokes. As for the 1961 Willie Stokes, he was a run-of-the-mill murderer who doesn't merit an article.[22] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are now enough legitimate entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meets speedy deletion criteria {{db-disambig}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep 3 valid entries, plus valid see also. I've tidied it so that's clearer. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new "valid" entry links to the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a new entry, it was there before. And it links to a subsection of Willie Stoke's article, which is about his son, also named Willie Stoke - so clearly the son meets MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added link to List of Caddie Hall of Fame inductees#Willie Stokes. :) John Cline (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why did the nominator, and supporters, propose deletion and not propose merge to William Stokes dab? It feels to me like this wasn't looked into enough. Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because nobody on this page is notable. The actual Willie Stokes could be mentioned there, but other than that it's unnecessary. Beerest355 Talk 20:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTABILITY isn't the criteria here - MOS:D (especially in these cases MOS:DABMENTION is what you shoulfd be looking at. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no section dedicated to Willie Stokes, Jr. (contrary to what you stated above, it is just about his funeral) in the Willie Stokes article, Willie Stokes the caddie seems to be more known as Pappy from the sources given, and the Bad Santa character was previously noted. As such, this disambiguation page is probably not needed. Beerest355 Talk 23:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      MOS:DABMENTION states, "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included" (emphasis mine). There is no requirement that a section must carry the topic's name. Suggesting that a nickname supersedes the appropriateness of disambiguation of the birth name is an unsupported synthesis as well, in my opinion. :) John Cline (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The second entry is incorrect because the article that it refers to, the British Soap Awards, does not mention that it is abbreviated "BSA," and therefore is unlikely to be searched for by that letter combination." So yes, it generally is supported that a subject should have at least some sort of a resembling name that he would be searched for. Seeing as how the sources provided state he went by Pappy, it isn't too far fetched to assume most people would search for him anyway. (I doubt anyone was searching for him anyway, to be honest) Beerest355 Talk 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh? That doesn't make any sense. The article does state that he was known as "Willie Stokes", I don't see how the snippet of guideline you quote has any relevance. older ≠ wiser 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry if I sounded confusing there. Anyway, this guy was known as Pappy Stokes and inducted into the Hall of Fame that way, so people are probably going to search for him by his nickname. I think I misunderstood it. Sorry! I'll be leaving this open, however. Beerest355 Talk 01:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Stokes was inducted as Willie "Pappy" Stokes[23] and this is how he is listed on the disambiguation page as well. Parenthetical nicknames are not used in article titles so any article on this subject would usurp the redirect and be titled Willie Stokes (caddie). :) John Cline (talk) 00:55, 19 June 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, Sandstein 07:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate. Disambiguation is required for WP articles—not for every conceivable facet of a topic. Miniapolis 17:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Miniapolis, of the three items disambiguated on this page, which do you consider to be "stretching the bounds of conceivability"? :) John Cline (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't let any moss grow under my feet waiting. Willie Stokes (caddie) is now a solid start class article. What else is needed here? I call on an administrator to close this discussion as a speedy keep in that a solid need for disambiguation in this title is warranted. :) John Cline (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Willie Stokes the caddie even notable? I don't really see how he is. Beerest355 Talk 18:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm torn here as both sides make valid comments. Those wishing to delete consider that this articles is unencyclopedic and original research. Those wishing to delete the article essentially disagree that the article is original research and that there are sufficient sources to meet notability. As I believe both sides make strong arguments, I must close this debate as no consensus. I would however suggest the article has a thorough clean up so it is better sourced, and all original research is removed ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery of nude celebrities

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

Useless junk. Almost entirely composed of OR, and should be either deleted with fire, or redirected to one of the linked subjects (such as Celebrities, celebrity sex tapes, or paparazzi (the last would be my recommendation). Only the last two paragraphs have any sort of referencing, and many of those sources are either sketchy, gossipy, or insignificant. Further, the article has been tagged as having a variety of problems for six years now. This violates our BLP policy, and either needs substantial reworking or simple deletion. Horologium (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, trivial nonsense. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Well, okay, there might be some merit to the topic? Maybe? But really, it's moot because of the article and sources' quality, and also BLP concerns above. Ansh666 05:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC) BTW, where can I find these images? Heh just kidding.[reply]
- The main reason I said delete was the BLP concerns. Now, there's not that much of a reason to delete, as long as we can keep them out of the article. So weak keep until better sources are found and/or added, upon which just normal keep. Ansh666 18:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : AfD is not cleanup, as clear in our deletion policy, and all the concerns above are related to content, not to the topic. I removed BLP violations in the last paragraph. The topic is notable: there is a a book on the subject, a book paragraph here (which in turn makes reference to other works on the topic), this looks like a paper on the topic, and this is another paper that discusses the topic in some depth. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there's a place for some sort of article related to the general subject on Wikipedia, this is an essentially unsourced essay/amorphous blob of OR; two of the three "references" are just spam for commercial porn sites and the third is a profile of a guy whose hobby is debunking fake naked pics of celebrities. There's no encyclopedic content to salvage here, and the title is not really a plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even just as a generalist discussion of the topic itself including academic analysis from scholarly sources and commentary from books, this subject matter could be represented in a way that is both educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, there may be some merit to the topic, and whilst WP:NOTCLEANUP is a valid concern, what we have here is pure OR, with some hideously unreliable sources, used solely to promote said sources. Nuke it, start again. And, to the "not cleanup" comments: the tags have been there for SIX years, and haven't been sorted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the tags have been there for SIX years, and haven't been sorted. - Did I miss the memo with the deadline? Again: deletion is not cleanup, and this is basically policy. If something can be solved by editing, it has to be solved by editing -deletion is not a solution. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that there is no deadline. However, if tags sit somewhere for 6 years, it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to fix the issues. WP:TNT is relevant for this OR mess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is a (debatable) essay, WP:ATD is policy. Take your pick. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references cited above appear to be enough to show that the topic is notable, and an article possible. I don't really consider this OR as much as uncited summary. I'm not sure about the title: I interpreted it as "people who became notable for being nude" . I don't immediately have a better one, though. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 20 June 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, Sandstein 07:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per -Cyclopia. The topic satisfies WP:N and is sufficiently removed from the possible redirect/merger targets for those actions to make little sense. That said, it needs monitoring to remove occasional BLP vios and to keep out "examples" and spam links. Available RS can be used to fix problems with unsourced OR. Also, I note past instances of removal of references. Edison (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mogadishu#Education. Per longstanding precedent. I have no doubt that a further relist will end with this same result. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Imran primary school

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

Primary school with no indication of notability supplied or found ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 15 June 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 · · 05:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mogadishu#Education per long established consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Shuck (song)

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

No consensus was deduced from the previous afd. I have decided to nominate this article again in order to generate consensus from the community. The song meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS. Here is the previous debate with my cogent argument Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Shuck_(song).

Criteria 1 The song has not been the subject of any independent coverage. All citations are taken from reviews of the album Permission to Land, therefore the album in its entirety is the subject. WP:MUS states The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single. Therefore writing a sentence about a song in an album review does not indicate broad coverage.
Criteria 2 The song is not a single and has not charted anywhere in the world.
Criteria 3 The song has not won any awards or honors.
Criteria 4 The song has never been independently released by any other notable artist. It has only appeared on three Darkness CDs. It has not been covered or released by anyone else; see allmusic link here [24]. Bluidsports (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the nominator. There's no independent coverage of this song, it wasn't a single so shouldn't need article. It is badly written and should not use citations from the album to engineer a legitimate article. PC7705 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 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 · · 05:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Permission to Land. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in its own right, and don't see anything worth merging with parent album article. Redirect doesn't seem relevant either since the song has never transcended the status of being a mere album track on an LP. Toxic Frogman (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patently non-notable. Peter Somerville (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Dixon (artist)

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

This article just makes no sense, is almost entirely lacking in secondary sources and the subject has had a big hand as author of the page. I can't see anything relaible online that even begins to hint about who this person is or what they do. Whatever it is, it certainly isn't notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. PROD declined by author in 2009. Sionk (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC Kabirat (talk) 08:10, 15 June 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 · · 04:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not notable) TEDickey (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Above assessments seem to be spot-on. Agricola44 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 05:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fichet-Bauche

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

Seems like an advertisement article, not enough RS. Tyros1972 Talk 07:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article wasn't great but it was an accurate history of a major and highly notable company. I've added some better sources and some quotes about Fichet-Bauche. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Chiswick Chap's work. Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 11 June 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 · · 00:10, 15 June 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 · · 04:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per others. USM the Weather Whiz (Shoot me a line) 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grad assault rifle

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

DePRODded. Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:RS. Someone might need to check for Russian sources. Ansh666 23:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried under different variations ("Grad assault rifle" "grad AR") and found very little. I did add a single reference to support the weapon's origin, but do not believe the source would go towards establishing notability, just to support content within the article. I will refrain from voting at this time as based on the few mentions that I did find, I am of the belief that there are probably more foreign references out there if someone is willing to locate them. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the subject has received significant coverage in non-reliable sources, but no significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore the subject does not meet notability as defined by WP:GNG. Perhaps it is too soon for the subject of this AfD to be considered notable, but perhaps one day the subject may receive significant coverage from reliable source and this article can be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:24, 18 June 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 · · 04:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation. I had a good look (actually a couple of times) and really couldn't find much at all. It was unclear if what I could find was based on this article or info from elsewhere. It all seemed a bit circular to me. My other problem was with the rather "colloquial" sounding name. "Grad" in Russian is "hail" (as in "hail from") isn't it? The suffix ~grad (like Stalingrad) is "city" but that wouldn't seem to apply here. So I tried searching some variations in Russian (which I don't read or write) and couldn't find any of the words in any combination in any targeted search. I'm just not seeing significant coverage. My instinct is that this is either a "street" name for a local variant or this title is a mistranslation that has been carried through to other English language sites. Maybe I'm wrong and it's something else. Either way, we would need more coverage for inclusion here. Stalwart111 13:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Forge CodeProfiler

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

The software hasn't become notable since this article was last deleted in 2008. There are currently five references, of which the first and fifth are primary sources, and the fourth is a blog post and therefore not reliable. The remaining two are passing mentions in two books, and therefore don't amount to significant coverage. (The entirety of what Chuprunov's second, 557-page book has to say about CodeProfiler specifically is the following: "In order to detect inconsistencies and differences to the target state in advance, tools for static code analysis, such as Virtual Forge CodeProfiler, can be integrated into the SAP Transport Management System (TMS) of SAP… This tool can also scan all ABAP code in the live system for a large variety of security and compliance violations…". The first book says even less: "In order to detect inconsistencies and differences to the target state in advance, tools for static code analysis, such as Virtual Forge CodeProfiler, can be integrated into the SAP correction and transport process." (my translation from the original German)) Contrary to the article's claims, neither book specifically "recommends" CodeProfiler; it's only given as an example of a static code analysis tool which can be used. Psychonaut (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VFeditor: I can't follow this argumentation. The Wikipedia rules are to prove that an article is notable by ideally providing a list of books that deal with the topic. We provided two books that mention the tool. To what extend does a book/link need to mention the tool so the tool becomes notable? Vfeditor (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first criterion of our general notability guideline discusses what counts as "significant coverage". The guideline makes it very clear that a single sentence in a larger work, such as a book or newspaper article, doesn't count as significant coverage. (See in particular the footnoted example.) Neither of the two books you cite devotes more than two sentences to CodeProfiler, and even then it's only mentioned as an example. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VFeditor: I have addedd a reference to an analyist report and multiple customer statements, pls check whether this qualifies as a reliable source. --Vfeditor (talk) 11:49, 8 June 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 · · 00:08, 15 June 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 · · 04:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find ant non-trivial mentions other than a single short mention as an example, without further discussion, in http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-35302-4_6. The article being written like an advertisement by an editor with a conflict-of-interest doesn't help either. —Ruud 09:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify What about the report written by Analysts KuppingerCole? It's focussed on CodeProfiler. Vfeditor (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These kinds of reports are often written at the request of (and paid for by) the vendor, so it wouldn't pass the "independent" part of the "non-trivial mentions in multiple independent reliable sources". —Ruud 14:02, 1 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 Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proximagen

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

Non notable company with no approved drugs DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Upsher-Smith Laboratories, of which it is a wholly owned subsidiary.[25] --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence about Proximagen to the Upsher-Smith article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or full merge -- The article states that it is an AIM-listed company. As such it should be notable. The fact that it has been taken over by an American company, which will presumably continue to run the Cambridge research laboratroies seems no reason to delete it. If it was notable befeore the takeover (and I am certain that it was), the takeover should make no difference. Notability in WP terms should not be temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Shams

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

I do not see him as being more than a routine surgeon with publications in local journals. There are two cited publications in GScholar. One, from J Ayub Med Coll (cited in the present article as shown in http://academic.research.microsoft.com/. has 9 GS citations, another paper has 1. Unwisely accepted in 2011 from AfC DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article claims he is head of neurosurgery at Fatima Jinnah Medical College, a major medical school, which could be a claim to notability; however I could not verify that claim because he is not listed on the faculty page of that medical school.[26] He does appear to be on staff at the associated Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (Pakistan).[27] The hospital's web page says that its department of neurosurgery was only established in 2011, so it's possible that the medical school faculty listing is out of date, or maybe the department exists only at the hospital and not at the med school. For now, I don't find verifiable notability - and as noted by nominator his publications do not meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several of his publications are in PubMed, but don't seem to show-up in WoS for some reason – difficult to establish citation figures from this angle. Given the local nature of the journals, I suspect they're low, but these should be confirmed at any rate. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. His most-cited publication in Google scholar, on anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages, gets 9 citations in Google scholar. By comparison, Google scholar finds that at least seven publications on this highly-specialized subject have over 50 citations each, with the top at 224 [28]. I conclude from this that he does not have the impact required for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see much evidence for any of the other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Berrey

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

This article seems like it is promotion for someone that is non-notable. The first reference is an order form for a book. The second reference is a dead link. The third reference is a dead link. It wouldn't matter if the third reference worked because it is from the college that he graduated from. The fourth link is an article about a creek. The fifth is a dead link. The sixth is a directory of people. The seventh redirects to the main page of Myspace. The next two are dead links and the final one is a Myspace profile. I found no coverage for this person. He is either non-notable or his credentials is a hoax. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Utter lack of credible references and not even much in the way of claims of notability in the article itself. A poster sold by the Alabama Red Cross is the best of the bunch, and that doesn't even come close to satisfying the notability guidelines (even if it were sourced, which it isn't). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Desperately tries to claim notability through thirdhand association (he studied with someone who supposedly studied with Dali; his dad supposedly knew Bear Bryant; his aunt once touched Mike Nesmith's garbage recycling bin)... ok, I made that last one up, but it would fit right in. Parts of it are so incredibly goofy that they read like a parody of a silly vanity article: "He embodies the spirit of art in the South."... no, seriously, it really says that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His father, Bucky Berrey, was a successful kicker for the Crimson Tide and did 'know' Coach Bryant but while Bucky was signed by the Atlanta Falcons in May 1977 he was cut less than two months later never having played an NFL game.- Dravecky (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I don't doubt the truth of it--quite the contrary, actually, as anyone making up false notability for themselves would hopefully aim a little higher. We sometimes hear arguments of notability that fail because of WP:NOTINHERITED: simply having met or worked with someone notable does not make you notable... this one doesn't even rise to that level, as he's not even claiming to have met anyone significant but to know people who have. In 8 years on Wikipedia it's easily one of the oddest non-notable articles in memory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://eurjhf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/05/17/eurjhf.hfs076.full

[1]