Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 March	5 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Bunjaku[edit]

Delete .Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG.He hasnt played in a fully-professional league.For the fully professional leagues kept by wikipedia see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues Debojyoti (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, though I'm not sure why it was necessary to afd the article in the first place. The PROD that was already in place was fine. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a misunderstanding. The nominator should now know for future reference. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable youth team player, currently only playing for reserve team in a non-fully-pro team. No international representation, no significant awards won therefore fails GNG. May well play professionally and become notable in the future. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 11 March 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. J04n(talk page) 10:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Ilie Pintea[edit]

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

Article lacks sufficient sources to establish the notability of the subject, and I have been unable to locate any. No sources to meet WP:GNG, nor any to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The team he played for has been on and off again in a fully professional league, but the one external link does not indicate he appeared in matches in the league. There may be non-English language sources that support notability available, but I wont be able to find them. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:21, 5 March 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. J04n(talk page) 10:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SkyRiot[edit]

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

I PRODded this earlier because it was unsourced, and because I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources - Ghits are mainly social networking sites and forums. The article's creator de-PRODded after adding http://freegamer.blogspot.ca/, but since that isn't considered a reliable source, I think my reasons for deletion still stand. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The result was delete. If someone else wants to try to create an article about the "founder", they are welcome to do so, but they'll need more sources than are in this article to do it. If someone wants this usefied for reference, let me know and I will do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smintair[edit]

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

Still not notable, although well covered in the press at the time it was just a spike caused by the intention to start an airline, appears have been to make a pro-smoking point and not a serious attempt at a real airline. So really NOTNEWS and just not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. And all there is to say about Smintair comes from statements by Alexander Schoppmann (go ahead, create that article, and mention Smintair there if you think he is notable). This was taken up by BBC News, the New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post and others. But have a closer look at these articles: They are just reproducing a series of quotes by Schoppmann and content copied from his website. In my opinion, this can not be considered as significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, as neither of these news outlets put any effort in own journalistic research/analysis work concerning Smintair itself. It is nearly certain that with a good self-marketing, such a strange business proposal will get quite some media attention. But still, it remains a flash in the pan, without any long-lasting impact. I think Smintair should not be considered as a company (because it has never been properly established as such), but as an event: Alexander Schoppmann once created a website and spoke to some press guys. As there has not been any continued coverage and lasting impact, it therefore fails notability per WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. --FoxyOrange (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rescope to Alexander Schoppmann, who seems likely to clear the notability bar; this proposed airline does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 8 March 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. AfD is not the proper place to lodge a disagreement with an AFC reviewer, nor is it the proper place to call other editors "arses". ‑Scottywong | talk _ 21:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gisela of Kerzenbroeck[edit]

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

Inappropriate AFC acceptance. Article seems to lack context and is very incomplete. GAtechnical (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am responsible for creating the Gisela of Kerzenbroeck page. I feel strongly that this page should remain in existence. Female medieval illuminators are few and far between, and the Codex Gisele is a significant medieval manuscript. Several books are dedicated entirely to a discussion of this manuscript and its author. While little is known about Gisela, I have included the inscription that mentions her name and three viable sources. I would hope that medieval scholars will continue to contribute to and expand upon this article. Alexandrathom (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist and tbe illuminated manuscript she created are discussed in many reliable sources,as shown by a Google Books search under her name and also Codex Gisle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that but that's not the point of this AFD. The user who moved it from AFC, seems to be a real bad judge (personal I think he is being an arse) as this article IMO is not ready for mainspace due to it's lack on context. And judging by the amount of sources I found in a simple search, proves the point that it shouldn't have been moved IMO. Apologies to Alexandrathom for this dancing around. GAtechnical (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that AfD is not the proper place to resolve a disagreement with an AFC reviewer. The topic is notable and the solution to perceived shortcomings in the article is to improve, expand and reference it, not to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is definitely not the proper place to resolve this. And since the nominator did a "simple search" and found sources, then he actually followed WP:BEFORE, sort of. However, rather than taking it to AFD, those sources should have been added to the article, saving everyone the trouble of this pointless AFD. And do I have to point out how inappropriate "I think he is being an arse" is? freshacconci talktalk 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in my view, the subject would pass WP:CREATIVE as the creator of historically significant work, regardless of volume of sources. I agree that progression from AFC should require more than "would survive AFD". You should absolutely follow those concerns up with the reviewer but AFD isn't AFCRV (Articles For Creation For Review). Stalwart111 00:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per the nominator admitting he found plenty of sources in a "simple search" thus making this AFD pointless.freshacconci talktalk 15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominators problem unclear. I've ce'd & added bits, using my unreliable German. It probably shouldn't have left AFC without categories for example (now added), but that's not an AFD issue. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Curry[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BIO. I've had a good look, but the only mention in the media that I could find is what is currently ref #2. Schwede 66 18:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Suspected self-promotion. Creator has only edited this article. Otherwise, surely fails WP:N. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I proded it a few days ago, and I still can't see any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitive fail of BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She is funny but only Internet famous - SimonLyall (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am personally a fan of her Facebook page, but unfortunately she is only "World famous in New Zealand" and doesn't meet WP:N. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 10:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if Facebook likes are an assertion of importance, but this smells like it should have been A7ed. No notability whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re A7. It was my plan, but I was using Twinkle for the first time for an AfD, and it didn't give me that option. Weighing up between being able to find out how Twinkle deals with AfDs and putting up the A7 manually, I opted for the former. Sorry to put everyone through this pain. Regarding the world famous in New Zealand comment above, I had a look at her Facebook page as part of my research on notability. She's got quite an output, and many of her contributions are rather witty. If she keeps it up, I'm sure that she will reach the notability threshold at some point. Schwede 66 17:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie, judging from the !votes at this point it's essentially just a longer-lasting A7 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability as a blogger or comedian, one source for notability as an amateur sports player. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 5 March 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Bell (actress)[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this actor and former cheerleader when searching for her name in combination with any of her works or the team for which she was a cheerleader. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Not notable and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - She does not seem to have received attention as an actress or cheerleader. Google News found two results relevant to the Philadelphia Eagles here (press release) and here (second from the top, you can also see the press release result). While searching for the original The Intelligencer article, I also found this Army news article which mentions her a few times. Another search found this Philly news article for a theatre production which may or may not be her though there's a good chance it is. The IMDb biography claims she was "nationally recognized as a Nominated National Dancer of the Year 2002" (vague) but News searches haven't found anything though I did find this which mentions a Nicole Bell twice. After multiple different searches (including Ugly Betty), I found nothing to establish notability. I have no prejudice towards userfying or a future article when she is notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per TOO SOON and without prejudice. Her roles in films nearly rise to a level to meet WP:ENT but not quite yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 10 March 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 03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Euntaek Kim[edit]

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

Promotional article, possibly copied from a concert program. It is very similar to one from 2011. No notable accomplishments--the International Tchaikovsky Competition is not the famous one, but the junior level. DGG (at NYPL) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting musicians or other artists. This looks like a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Kim might be notable in a few years. - ʈucoxn\^talk 06:30, 7 March 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 07:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai grunfeld[edit]

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

I see no particular indication that this individual might pass WP:PROF. None of the sources provided points to that conclusion. One is a directory entry, one is a blurb on a blog post and one is from the subject's own website. Plainly, none of these fulfills the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG.

On a lighter note, it's rather amusing that User:Hispanic Studies Asst, the single-purpose account who created this article, and presumably a student at Vassar, titled this "Mihai grunfeld". Forget about the umlaut in Grünfeld; it seems not all Vassar students know that surnames are capitalized! - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few citations in Gscholar for WP:PROF C1. I detect some press mentions of his book Leaving: Memories of Romania but it's held in very few Worldcat libraries [1], and I've not been able to find full-length reviews of his books to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. WP:BIO coverage is not evident from the Gnews link above, either. Ray^Talk 21:47, 6 March 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence

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. J04n(talk page) 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Abbott[edit]

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

This biography of a silent film actor is sourced through Find-a-grave which basically means that it's unsourced. I tried but failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't even find superficial coverage in unreliable sources like IMDb so there's a real verification problem. However, he might be known under a stage name or some variant of "James" (Jim, Jimmy) that I did not consider. Pichpich (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nomination - can't find any information about this person other than Find-a-Grave. PK T(alk) 20:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:BIO. While I did find his death record,[2] and learned that there was a James F. Abbott, born in 1872 and dying in 1954 as on the headstone, who was born as James Francis Abbott in Maine on April 24 1872.[3] There is nothing else to learn about this fellow... but with the birth/death timing he "could" have been either a James Francis Abbott (involved in opera before getting into film),[4] or James Francis Abbott (an author of that period).[5] No verifiability though. Kind of a pity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 10 March 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. J04n(talk page) 23:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotary Club of Milton[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article shouldn't have been moved to mainspace from AfC. This is a local organization, notable, if at all, only for a small locale, and it is excessive in its detail and promotional in its tone. There are thousands of Rotary clubs, and only few of them could possible be independently notable: this does not appear to be one of them. With my apologies to Milton. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and Clean-up~~ Neutral. The article clearly demonstrates that its subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (local newspapers). Several of those references are to reader's letters and should therefore be removed, but most of the references are fine. The article is obviously too verbose, it doesn't need to go into so much detail. That detail is the job of the subject's website, not a wikipedia article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Article & Clean Up. Hello user Drmies. I am the original creator of this page. Thank you for your concerns. I have worked extensively with user GATechnical and several other users to make this new entry compliant. The page was originally rejected for not being unique or notable enough to warrant its own page. Much of the detail added relates to notable supporters over the years who are of great prominence including Walter Gretzky, Douglas Porter, Johnny Bower and many others.

The level of detail is meant to chronicle the club's history and is not intended to be promotional. Perhaps we can work on any of the semantics you find questionable. The detailed chronology is a factual representation of work completed. Service clubs by definition are agents of good works, so to construe a listing of good works as promotion is misguided. No offence.

Notable supporters alone I understand is not enough to justify a club's own page. However, the Milton club in particular is unique and notable among worldwide Rotary clubs for its demographics. The greatest of these demographic trends is increasing club membership while worldwide service club membership is decreasing, especially in North America. All of this is fact and supported by references in the article. For your information here is the notable attributes:

Situated in Milton, Ontario, the fastest growing community in Canada since 2001 (71.4% growth 2001-2006 and 56.4% growth 2006-2011), in one of the largest population concentrations in North America, southern Ontario's Golden Horseshoe, giving it explosive potential for membership growth (in six months club membership has grown by 30%). This is bucking worldwide trends as many clubs' membership numbers are in complete "freefall". *Selected to be one of fewer than 200 clubs worldwide (0.0058% of all clubs) to participate in a Rotary International pilot program that supports member diversity by allowing the club to hold two weekly meetings via a satellite club instead of one (a breakfast meeting and a supper meeting) to attract different types of members (small business owners vs. commuting professionals). As a result the Milton club's membership is now 35% female and 17% visible minorities. Prior to 1990, the club was 100% white male Rotarians.
For its early adoption among Rotary clubs and widespread, effective use of social media (Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Website, etc.)
For selecting one of the youngest club presidents in Rotary International for the 2014-2015 year who will be aged 31 by the time he holds office. Worldwide members under the age of 39 years old make up only 11% of total global membership.

From a purely objective standpoint, this club deserves its own page. Over two months of edits and justifications have been made in support of this page, not just by myself, but others as well who are unaffiliated with the club. I cannot see a flood of individual Rotary clubs being able to justify their own pages if that's the concern.

Bottomline I'd like to improve the article and I'm more than happy to work with the community to make it the best it can be. I am a team player who wants to contribute to the Wiki community to make it the best it can be. All the best, Rod McLachlan (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to gather sources that aren't local, and show us what there is. You are in the best position to find those sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Milton, Ontario. I disagree with Gorgan almighty that the club has received significant coverage to pass WP:ORG. It has received many mentions in the local paper, but seemingly no significant coverage - only mentions of what the organisation is doing. As WP:BRANCH states, the coverage would need to include sources outside of the local area for the group to be notable. The most sensible solution in my opinion is to take a few of the best sources and use them to reference the material already included at Milton,_Ontario#Service_Clubs. SmartSE (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've started making some large clean-up changes to the article, assuming the article is kept. Firstly, the club event photos are entirely inappropriate and have been removed. Secondly the timeline was too verbose and didn't limit its content well enough. I've now started re-writing it to include major activities only, and in sentence form not bullet-point form. Thirdly the huge list of previous presidents was inappropriate and has been removed. I don't have much time now, so feel free to continue these changes yourself, particularly to the Activities section. Particularly, consider changing it to have a separate sub-section for each activity (such as the park) instead of a separate sub-section for each decade. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly an improvement, but I don't see what can be salvaged. It's basically just a list of all the donations that they have made, which doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. It belongs on the club's website (which Rod appears to contribute to) but not here. That also lead me to notice that Rod appears to be the PR director and president elect - that doesn't make any difference as to whether we keep the article or not, but people might want to know. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smartse. Thanks for the heads up on policy. I leave it in the hands of the community. I have never hidden the fact that I was affiliated with the club. The club is not a commercial enterprise and is a non-profit, with nothing to gain financially here. I will continue to comply with all Wikipedia rules and regulations. Whether the article is fit for inclusion or not shouldn't rest on whether I created it or not. I made every effort to write it in a non-promotional, unbiased tone. I continue to encourage others to edit it to make it compliant. I consistently stated facts backed by media sources and not opinions. Clearly only someone with knowledge of the club could put that article together or would even spend that many hours working on it and sourcing those citations.

I hope the community can objectively make a decision and I will abide by that. At the end of the day the Milton Rotary Club is a bunch of people trying to have a positive impact on the world. There's no fame or glory. Just hard work for the benefit of others. I'll be staying out of the discussion from here on out. All the best, Rod McLachlan (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete - the 'weak' is a sop to the authors, because the Club evidently has a strong relationship with the (reputable) local newspaper and, unlike many articles about companies and organisations, there are plenty of news articles cited. I can see some effort has been expended to create a passable article. However, WP:CORPDEPTH applies here, some evidence of regional or national attention is required. If one regional or national news source could be found, I'd change my 'vote' to "weak keep". It is clear at the moment the article's intention is to promote a local club, of no significance outside the town. Sionk (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even concerned with the (obvious) promotional character of the article--that's just a matter of editing. The problem is that there is nothing else: there is nothing regional or national, nothing we consider of encyclopedic value. I could fill pages and pages on the local chapter of United Way, but it'd be all local. Rod, it doesn't matter if your club works for good or evil. What matters is WP:GNG--coverage. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've dropped the 'Weak'. Author is clearly intent on turning this AfD into a farce by introducing a popularity contest on Twitter. Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sionk (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the standard to be applied here is WP:ORGDEPTH (as has been pointed out), along with the understanding that for the purposes of WP:N, multiple publications from the same source are to be considered one source. So the long list of references from the same newspaper doesn't actually do much to establish notability. There's plenty of local coverage, but nothing to suggest the club is recognised as a significant organisation beyond that town. WP:LOCAL comes to mind and the section Audience at WP:ORGDEPTH covers that more specifically. Unless significant regional or national coverage can be found, I think this is going to be a struggle. I also have WP:NOTWEBHOST concerns about long sections of local club history. Stalwart111 00:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the verbose language in the 1970's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, and 2010's and deleted unnecessary information. I have re-instated the "Demographics" section as is vital for showing the unique and notable nature of this particular club and justifies its inclusion on Wikipedia. I do not wish to further comment. Only mentioning this as it was listed as a concern with the article. Rod McLachlan (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts but a unique or unusual membership base is not really a basis on which an organisation would be considered notable. Even if those people were individually notable (in whatever regard), the organisation would still not inherit notability from its members. Those sorts of things are interesting and can be included in the article, but they don't really contribute to the subject's notability.

Though I'm hesitant to encourage prose clean-up in an article I think should be deleted, the mixture of past and present tense is confusing. If the article is kept, you might want to spend some time working on that. I've also amended your note heading - you need only "vote" once. Stalwart111 04:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally removed the Demographics section because I don't see its content as appropriate. The only bit of actual demographics there is the facts and figures relating to Milton, which isn't really relevant to the club and sounds like you're trying to 'borrow' the notability of Milton itself to establish notability for the club. The rest of it isn't demographics, and certainly doesn't establish notability. The only bit of useful information in that section is the pilot program participation, which I already incorporated below the first paragraph. The pilot program participation doesn't establish notability, but at least it's appropriate to the article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to argue further for keeping this article, but I'm still uneasy about the arguments put forward. Restrictions on local sources and singular sources establishing notability are both more restrictive than the general notability guideline, and there is by no means universal acceptance of such additional restrictions. Additionally, the question of whether local notability constitutes 'real' notability is certainly a topic worthy of discussion, but with the absence of clear universally accepted guidance on the matter, I think deletions based on the assumption that it doesn't are risky. For example, how do you define the cut-off when something becomes 'local'? How big should the 'local' area be before it is no longer 'local'? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say there has not been, "universal acceptance of such additional restrictions"...

"Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." is from WP:GNG itself.
"On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." is from WP:ORGDEPTH.

I would say both of those consensus-developed policies/guidelines are fairly universally accepted. Is it the combination you have a concern with? Stalwart111 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG also says:

"We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources."

Obviously multiple reliable sources are better, and the line below the one I quoted indicates that, but it is not a strict rule that requires deletion of an otherwise acceptable article. Also note that guidelines like WP:ORGDEPTH, etc, are not universally accepted. They are guidelines not policies, and anyone can write a notability guideline. In fact many WikiProjects insist on writing notability guidelines to cover their own articles, some of which are more restrictive, some are less restrictive, and others are simply incompatible with the WP:GNG. The fact that some notability guidelines are marked as accepted means that they have received a not-insignificant level of acceptance, but they are not universally accepted. There have in the past been moves to downgrade all notability guidelines other than WP:GNG to the status of essays. These attempts were met with stalemate, rather than defeat. WP:GNG is unique in that it is the only notability guideline that has achieved almost universal acceptance. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get where you're coming from. I think we probably disagree on the universality of acceptance for long-established guidelines like WP:ORGDEPTH but yours is an entirely valid argument. For me, what's there isn't enough, but I can certainly see how you came to your conclusion and I'm not about to suggest it's the "wrong" one - just different to mine. Stalwart111 21:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Rotary Club of Milton may be a fine organisation, but coverage only in the local community paper is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I put on Twitter a post saying Wikipedia is proposing to delete The Rotary Club of Milton page and asked people to re-tweet my message if they were OPPOSED to the proposed deletion. So far I have received retweets from:

@MEVCOntario (Milton Executive Volunteer Connection A connection for residents of Milton, Ontario who volunteer with organizations in Milton at the Board Level)
@nmfarrugia (founding President of the Milton Rotaract Club)
@MiltonHardware (Milton Home Hardware)
@RickDiLorenzo (Councillor)
@kimmacd1971 (Optimist Club of Milton)

Rod McLachlan

You're having a laugh aren't you? This isn't a reality TV show. This AfD will be decided based on Wikipedia policy, not fan votes on Twitter! Sionk (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow. Rod, I know you're new and I can see why you might have thought that canvassing community/business contacts on Twitter might have seemed like a good idea, but it's actually considered really poor form here. As Sionk said, these discussions aren't even based on vote-counting on Wikipedia, so they certainly won't be bassed on vote-counting off Wikipedia. Those messages really can't be considered in any context here, if for no other reason than none of those messages would be considered Wikipedia-policy-based reasons for keeping the article. Probably a bell that can't be unrung now. Stalwart111 22:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing worth merging; it should be listed in the town article, but there is no point in making a redirect, it is where anyone would look without one.

Our new contributor is perfectly correct that we can make exceptions to our guidelines, including the notability guideline, and that we have established general exceptions to it, some written in formal guidelines, some in the degree to which various essays are accepted, and some in conventions that we don't have actually written. It is also true that the actual meaning of the guidelines depends in many cases on the way we interpret particular phrases, such as "significant" coverage, which can vary for different sorts or articles and is to some extent a matter of judgement. He is also correct that we have the ability to ignore the guideline altogether in whatever direction, whenever we think it will benefit Wikipedia and have sometimes explicitly decided to do so. He doesn't say, but it is also true, that we have occasionally made eccentric decisions and even downright errors, again in various directions. So he is right to raise the question of whether our guideline against local clubs or local branches of national clubs makes sense, whether our present normal strict exclusion of local sources and 'significant" coverage for this particular topic area is correct, whether we should consider some of the other factors he mentions, and whether we should make an exception in this particular case.

I think that our standing practices for this topic are very reasonable:there is almost no case where the doings of such clubs is of any concern except to their own members. They all engage in the usual civic ceremonies; they all support the local charities; they all make the usual contributions to causes in vogue at the time. They are part of the ordinary civic life and structure of the local community, but in a way that is of interest only to the most local of local historians. Nobody other than the people in their town would ever have any concern with them. When we have local wikipedias, they would be appropriate content.

This is not primarily my personal view: it is the consensus of WPedians in general established through multiple guideline discussions and thousands of AfDs. I fully accept this consensus, and accept it as the only way to have any degree of quality control. We have enough problems with groups of more than local interest.

I see no reason to make an exception here. There is nothing in the article of special or general interest. It just confirms the general view--if with all this conscientious work nothing more can be found, we have confirmed that we have good reason to exclude such articles. We can only apologize that he was encouraged to continue work on the article by a reviewer at AfC who showed not just here but elsewhere that he does not understand our standards. We are now trying to explain this to him, and have told him not to conduct further reviewing until he does understand better. But it is our fault we did not do this earlier. Personally, I think we need formal standards before people can review AFCs. In their absence,we need to at least keep track of the people doing this, and help them learn before they get other people involved in doing work that will be to no purpose DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find evidence that this organization meets the general notability guidelines for organizations. Peacock (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - simply does not meet our standards of notability for a global project. I beg the earnest Rotarians of Milton and their allies: please, please read WP:NOBLECAUSE and WP:WECANT. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, nothing to show that it stands out from hundreds of other Rotary Clubs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article also raises the question of whether standards need to be improved at AfC. This should never have been created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reviewer has already been warned on several occasions and received a topic ban from AfC. Sionk (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the word "local" appears in neither WP:GNG, nor WP:RS, and only once in WP:NOT. If there is a consensus that "local" sources are not reliable or should be used to establish notability, it would be best to say so in the guidelines and policies. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I already commented above, there is no such universal consensus. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally accepted that local sources with standard news can't show notability in the world at large, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Except for something from the diagnostic imaging people at a local hospital, all coverage is from newspapers and other news sources that are reporting things as news. Wikipedia isn't the newspaper, and so we need our sources to be time-independent of the subject: please give us some coverage in books or academic journals. Alternately, it would work to provide national or provincial governmental sources: local sources generally aren't independent of the subject. Lacking all of those things, we can't keep this article. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a laudable but run-of-the-mill local service club. I mean that respectfully; it's a good club full of good people, but it does not meet the criteria for a separate article in an international encyclopedia. I personally belong to a local Kiwanis club which is older than this one and has done more notable stuff, but I would never dream of creating an article about it. See WP:BRANCH: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. " --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 12 March 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. J04n(talk page) 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AlexAndAlexa[edit]

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

Promotional article meant to promote the organization.Earlier Speedy declined in 2011.Not notable website Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional SPAM. - ʈucoxn\^talk 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete like above MarioNovi (talk) 07:43, 10 March 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 Redmine#Fork. J04n(talk page) 23:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChiliProject[edit]

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

Does not appear to have any extensive coverage by secondary sources Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software fork of unclear notability; no 3rd party RS references. Dialectric (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to Redmine#Fork - Two different Google News searches found three results here (German), here and here (brief mention in a press release). I didn't find anything at CNET for ChiliProject but I did find some pages for Redmine. Google Books found one result here which mentions it along with Redmine so ChiliProject may have received attention because of the fork connection. Redirecting may also be good because it's still relevant to Redmine. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I did consider the arguments by Dnimat and Mark viking, but it is not all that clear that there is significant coverage. The websites that cover the awards that Mark viking pointed out are valid for simple statements of facts that the company won the applicable award, but I cannot agree that they are "significant coverage about the company" because they don't "address the subject directly in detail" (the wording used in WP:GNG, emphasis mine), as a promotional presentation and a simple entry on an awards list is not "in detail". The arguments are valid, but not so strong that they can overrule what is an otherwise reasonably strong consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JetBrains[edit]

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

Does not appear to have any extensive coverage by secondary sources Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any independent sources to demonstrate notability. --Noleander (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not obvious at first glance, but this doesn't show how it is notable. The first 30 sites on Google don't seem to turn up much either.^King Jakob _C2 21:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence for now - it would seem the company has won a few ComponentSource Awards though I'm not sure whether that's a significant award (they did win in multiple categories for multiple products, so if the award is significant...). It should also be noted that this was nominated before those awards were announced - here - so there's nothing the nom could have done about that. WP:BEFORE searches wouldn't have picked those up at that point. They have also collaborated with the Colorado State University, though this story would not be considered "significant coverage", obviously. There's a bunch of news coverage in Russian, though I don't speak or read Russian so I have no idea if its significant coverage or just passing mentions. But most of the English-language sources are press releases, so I just can't !vote keep at the moment. Stalwart111 01:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any secondary sources in which JetBrains is the subject of the article. Then I thought maybe there might be some in Russian or something. Can't speak Russian, so just had a look at the Russian language article, and it has even poorer sources than the English one! Don't have high hopes for this, so have to say fails notability criteria, as reflected by the absence of appropriate sources. - Shudde ^talk 10:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is updated with some secondary source references Dmimat (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only two approach good references. http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2012/11/01/readers-choice-winners.aspx shows it won third-place for Collaboration, Project Management & Agile Solutions from Visual Studio Magazine, but third place isn't much of a victory. http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/the-kotlin-programming-language/231500204 is a presentation from a summit, but it appears that at least one of the presenters is an employee of the company: http://www.jetbrains.com/company/people/executives.html. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning third place for "Collaboration, Project Management & Agile Solutions" from a trade magazine is not the sort of significant impact to get a business a standalone article in an encyclopedia. I'm more concerned over the substantial walled garden of non-notable products we have here, especially given that this business makes software for software developers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a reference to the JAX 2012 award for most innovative Java company. No members of the jury appear to work for JetBrains, so this looks like a reliable source. While one can argue how much of a victory the ComponentSource awards and the Reader's Choice awards are, they both look like reliable sources. Multiple awards suggest notability, as WP:NSOFT#Inclusion states that the software is notable if The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. I consider these awards to be significant coverage about the company; if so, the awards also seem to satisfy the WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. The article is somewhat promotional, but this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Notability of the topic along wth surmountable problems suggests that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 17:45, 6 March 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 Deb (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoTex). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NoTex[edit]

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

None notable piece of software which doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. Page creator has implied that they wish to use Wikipedia to advertise the product. I suspect they have a WP:COI based only on a gut feeling. Google test turns up nada and the only resources I can find on the product are first party and github. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: - Some discussion with the page creator after an initial CSD can be found here: Talk:NoTex#Contested deletion - Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources has been made difficult by the name "Notex" being used for other things, but a search for "notex text editor" or "notex editor" also throwing up nothing reliable means that sources for this are unlikely. Maybe it'll take off and be popular, but until it does, it's too soon for an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. I suspect that the article creator is new to Wikipedia, and is unaware of the strict inclusion criteria that we use here (in which case I refer him to WP:N). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not to add another nail in the coffin to the author's product but I really haven't found any third-party links despite numerous News searches. If the software is covered by at least one magazine, it may have the potential eventually but it's not notable at this time. I have no objection to userfying the article for future use. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonnotable product/advertisement TEDickey (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. Source searches are not providing coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contest[edit]

This article was marked for deletion based on a so called "Google test" .. I get the impression the test comments were not completely impartial:

+ Here is comment number (1):

Delete A search for sources has been made difficult by the name "Notex" being used for other things, but a search for "notex text editor" or "notex editor" also throwing up nothing reliable means that sources for this are unlikely. Maybe it'll take off and be popular, but until it does, it's too soon for an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So Ritchie333 admits that "NoTex" does at least *appear* actually on a google search; that at least my understanding from the first part if his sentence. Second part is actually not accurate:

The search "notex editor" yield the project page of *NoTex* on position number 1;
The search "notex text editor" does not yield anything meaningful; here Ritchie333 is actually correct. But the reason for that is that NoTEx is *not* a simple *text* editor, but a *reStructuredText* editor; so
the corresponding search "restructuredtext editor" (even *without* the NoTex name in it) yield position number 4;
and finally "restructuredtext editor notex" yield position number 1;

Based on the above facts, I contest that the *google test* for "NoTex" fails, and on the contrary it show that for the *interested audience* w.r.t. to "reStructuredText" NoTex is very relevant. Maybe the original first sentence in the article should have not been `NoTex is a text editor` but `NoTex is a reStructuredText editor`, which I've just corrected.

+ Here is comment number (2):

Delete. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. I suspect that the article creator is new to Wikipedia, and is unaware of the strict inclusion criteria that we use here (in which case I refer him to WP:N). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The admin gorgan_almighty (*what* a name) claims that it has no significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources.. well if you go and check for http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/links.html and search "NoTex" on the page then you'll find it! BTW docutils.sourceforge.net is maintained by the very *creator* of the *reStructuredText* markup and he apparently thinks that NoTex is actually relevant enough to be included on this page.

Look guys, I might not be a Wikipedia expert, and this was my first article and I hope to improve it in an *iterative* fashion; but when you come and immediately squabble around "strict inclusion criteria" without giving an article the time to improve and give the proper references, the **no** newcomer will write any new articles anymore. Till now I was a great fan of Wikipedia, but today I actually searched for the first time for "wikipedia sucks" and voila .. there was a lot, a LOT (!) of `significant coverage in reliable secondary sources`.

If you guys think care about Wikipedia, then it would probably help, to do actual research before flagging something and be a little bit more welcoming to newcomers; I can't claim that till now the reception was very warm. ....

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsk81 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Google results are not an indication of notability, especially if targeted searching is used. The phrase 'google test' means simply googling the subject and browsing the first few results pages for anything resembing a WP:RS to indicate notability. If you arrived at the conclusion that I was searching simply for mentions of NoTex then I appologise.

Reliable secondary sources means something unconnected to the subject (i.e. it's in the creators interest to list editors for his markup language). An independant review is ideal in this case.

If the article does get deleted you can request it is 'userfied' where it is moved to you userspace for you to work on it. Once you think it's ready for article space you can request a review at WP:AFC and an impartial editor will review it resulting in it either being passed into article space or left on hold with some pointers in what needs done. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So would these links be considered impartial? NoTex.ch is obviously a Swiss/European centric site, but the reviews seem to be from Japan:

http://www.moongift.jp/2012/09/20120925/ is an actual *review* [translation at http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moongift.jp%2F2012%2F09%2F20120925%2F ]
http://b.hatena.ne.jp/entry/s/notex.ch/editor/ mentions NoTex, and many people (see lower part of site) seem to like it
http://w3q.jp/r/7333 Another Japanese mentioning NoTex

Hsk81 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another independent review:

http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/6968223/
http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.livedoor.com%2Farticle%2Fdetail%2F6968223%2F [just Google translation from Japanese to English of the previous link]

Hsk81 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hsk81. The reality of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria often takes a lot of new editors by surprise, and many react the way you have. I'm really sorry that you feel you've been discriminated against, but you have to understand that Wikipedia has strict inclusion criteria for a reason. Wikipedia cannot simply be a collection of anything and everything that can be proved to exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such has a certain notability bar that subjects must achieve before they are considered to be notable enough for inclusion. Additionally, Wikipedia has very specific guidelines on how to access that notability. I request that you thoroughly read the following articles: The General Notability Guideline, Independent Sources, Reliable Sources, Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. NoTex looks like a good piece of software, and I have seen similar software rise in popularity and use, receive reviews by several independent reliable sources, and end up with an article on Wikipedia. That may happen to NoTex eventually, but it has not happened yet. As user Cabe6403 says, the article can be 'userfied' to your own user space so that you can continue editing it there, and possibly restore it one day if and when it is suitably notable. In order to help you out I have already userfied it for you, and you may find the userfied version here: User:Hsk81/NoTex. Good luck with the future. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could anybody give a reaction to the reviews I provided? Are these considered ok, or not-ok?

Hsk81 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatena is a social bookmarking site and is therefore all inclusive and lacking in any reliable editorial oversight, so definitely not. Livedoor is an ISP and its news feeds don't appear to be attributed to any reliable news source, so no. The purpose of W3Q and Moongift is hard to identify, but neither of them appear to have their own Wikipedia articles so are unlikely to be considered reliable sources. Sorry. Did you read the articles I pointed you to? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that Hsk81 takes a read over the conflict of interest policy since I've noticed that NoTex is hosted under the same username at Github. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have with a lot of software articles is that they're well known in niche circles without ever appearing in major news outlets. Unfortunately, that makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia, as we only cover what the world at large has reported. The way to get around this, as reStructuredText as done itself, is to get it mentioned in reliable sources first, then create the article.

Taking Hsk81's comments on board, I tried "restructuredtext editor notex" and it brought up a Stackoverflow page (self published, unsuitable), the project page (a primary source), a SourceForge link (both primary and self published), the Wikipedia page for reStructuredtext (Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles), a blog (self published), two github pages (self published), a blog (self published) and a YouTube video (generally self published). None of these sources are reliable. You need significant coverage in major news outlets like cNet or TechCrunch - if you don't have those then the product just isn't well known enough to be included here. reStructuredText survives on a mere handful of references - principally David Mertz's article in IBM developerWorks, but I notice even that has had discussions about notability, and at one point here was tagged as such, and could have been sent to AfD at any time.

Incidentally, I would reiterate that I merely said I couldn't find sources, not that nobody could. I can't juggle either, but I don't see people lambasting me for that! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude, I would invite people to read point 15 in WP:OWB and the userbox 6 from the bottom on my user page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:39, 5 March 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 Iddesleigh. The consensus is very clear here that there should not be a separate article, although a few have suggested merging. I am calling this a redirect after looking at the Iddesleigh article and noting that Barwick is covered in the "Listed Buildings" section. Since it is referenced to a paper source, that should address some of the sourcing concerns in this AFD; otherwise I would have agreed that merging based on editors' speculations of what Barwick was would have been a poor idea. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barwick, Devon[edit]

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

I can find no sources to suggest this is a village. Although it is on Ordnance Survey maps as "Barwick" and at greater scale as "North Barwick", "South Barwick" and "East Barwick", these appear to be collections of farm buildings rather than settlements of more than two houses, and an 1809 Ordnance Survey map has "Barwick Farms" at this location. If there is any evidence this is a hamlet it should be kept, but I couldn't find anything referring to this as a settlement. Pontificalibus (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral per WP:NPLACE "Villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source", such as these OS Map extracts here, here and here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my nomination? I am contending that it is not a village, despite it's appearance on certain maps. Named farms also appear on such maps, and they are not generally kept in the absence of any other source.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your nomination and cited a policy and three reliable sources as to why it should be kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument applies to villages. Just because there is a name on a map doesn't mean it's a village. Where is "Barwick" on this higher resolution map? Following your logic we would include the adjacent "Lane End Cottage" as a village.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the source you linked to, you can see "Barwick" if you zoom out one level. At the zoom you provided, it is split into "North Barwick", "East Barwick" and "South Barwick". I'm afraid I don't understand your concerns. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that every name on those three maps you linked to refers to a village. That is not the case - individual farm houses are also shown. For example one of your sources shows "Bullhead" to the south-east, whereas this other source you gave has that as "Bullhead Farm". So I don't believe your sources are sufficient to show that "Barwick" is a village.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND, though only a supplimentary essay, states "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if their population is very low". Your argument that only places sufficiently populated to qualify as villages in some source are notable contradicts this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree it's not a village? In any case I did not say that only places sufficiently populated to qualify as villages are notable - in my nomination I said that if there were any evidence this was a hamlet, the article should be kept. However we haven't found such evidence. The map sources you gave don't distinguish between hamlets and farm houses, and I really don't think a farm house is a "populated, legally-recognized place". If we find one reliable source showing Barwick is a populated, legally-recognized place, I will withdraw the nomination. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete - I'm going to stick my neck out and say a-questionable-sentence-does-not-a-useful-article-make. This mention of a dead vicar suggests there may once have been an ecclesiastical parish - maybe one of the farms had a private chapel? This listing and this one suggests the buildings with the name Barwick may be actually in another parish/village. Until we have something concrete to go on, the sentence is misleading. Sionk (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to definite 'Delete' because it is clear from the discussion there's no hard proof Barwick every was a recognised place, therefore merging speculation into Iddesleigh would be wrong. Sionk (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ ~~Weak~~ Delete. ~~This is a very borderline case~~ (not very borderline any more, now a clear case for deletion). Google Maps and Google Street View both confirm the existence of buildings in this location, at least one of which seems to be a residential building, but the existence of buildings does not make a village. Cartographers (in the UK at least) often label a private farm in the same way that they label a village if no other villages are nearby. WP:GEOLAND is only someone's opinion, and would not have been written with this kind of case in mind. WP:NPLACE is only a statement of likely outcomes, and does not mention a case in which village status is in doubt. In all likelihood, I would imagine that all of the buildings in that location are owned by the same person, in which case it can only be classed as a private residence and not a village. As a private residence it is definitely not notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have now established that Barwick is not an officially recognised settlement. Certain businesses in rural settlements with a population of under 3,000 are eligible for a tax relief scheme called Rural Rate Relief. Barwick does not feature on a list of such settlements in the West Devon Borough Council area. They've just redesigned their website and I can't seem to link to the list or Google's cache of it, but you can view the cached file by searching Google for "APPENDIX A DEFINED RURAL SETTLEMENTS west devon" and using the QuickView function.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M. W. Tisdall God's beasts: identify and understand animals in church carvings : 1998 Page 278 index Barwick, Devon p194,p255 = the wrong Barwick, Somerset ? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I removed that reference from the article because, as you rightly point out, it's more likely to refer to Barwick, Somerset. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue at stake here is Verifiability, which trumps all notability guidelines, and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether Barwick, Devon exists as a public settlement. Barwick, Somerset clearly does exist as a public settlement, and although user In ictu oculi has provided a reference, even he seems unsure as to whether the reference is valid. User Pontificalibus has done extensive research and concluded that Barwick, Devon does not exist as a public settlement. I believe that as Verifiability is seriously in question, and as the article clearly doesn't contain anything of value, we should err on the side of caution and delete the article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody is questioning verifiability, unless you're claiming the Ordnance Survey is wrong or put it in as a copyright trap? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the discussion so far? Nobody is questioning that buildings exist in that location, but everybody apart from you is questioning whether it is a public settlement or simply a private residence / farm. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you just stated "Verifiability is in question", which to me implies you don't believe anything exists there at all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Barwick in Devon appears to be the address of two farms in Iddesleigh, not a settlement in its own right.J3Mrs (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why not merge / redirect to Iddesleigh? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge an address? Wikipedia isn't a list of addresses is it? J3Mrs (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's only your personal opinion that it's an address. Others may have a different view. It looks very confusing exactly what it is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confused, I'm not. J3Mrs (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what exactly? Iddesleigh may be the nearest real settlement, but its article doesn't need a list of all nearby residences. Should the article about my home town also note that my house resides there? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a government affiliated organisation decided on multiple occasions your house deserved to be mention on commercially published material, sure, why not? I'm going to guess it probably doesn't though. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Streets are invariably mentioned on numerous maps and local government documents, but most are not regarded as being sufficiently notable for inclusion. A group of farm buildings is no different in that respect.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the church carvings ref in the index that book must be a reference to the wrong Barwick. But all the same, Barwick Cross features in census records, apprenticeships at Lower Barwick, and it is 2km out of Iddesleigh and appears to have a dozen or so scattered houses, in which people are living. If it's deleted then it should be merged. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Barwick Madam and a listed building. This set of 4 hamlets is halfway between Iddesleigh and the much bigger Winkleigh so it isn't an immediate/automatic merge into Iddesleigh. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the references you added along with your changes, and they don't appear to check out. "Barwick Madam" is only a listed building and as such isn't notable. I can find no reference to the existence of "Barwick Cross" in any reliable source, including the "Ride The Ruby County" reference you added. The only reference I could find to a War Horse route on that website doesn't mention Barwick Cross. The route I found is "Ruby Cycle route 3; circular route from Hatherleigh, through Exbourne, Monkokehampton and Iddesleigh." here. Also the visual inspection doesn't match your description of Barwick Cross; "4 hamlets"? " a dozen or so scattered houses, in which people are living"? There are quite clearly two private farms there. There might possibly have been a hamlet once but I've seen nothing to verify that. As a result I'm going to remove the references to Barwick Cross. The verifiable information, which I have left in there, is relating to the listed building. But listed buildings are not inherently notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Iddesleigh - listed as Barwick Farm, Iddesleigh (with the unhibited Little Barwick Farm also listed) in the 1901 Census so unlikely to ever have been a hamlet. The 1891 Census has Barwick Cottage, Ash Lane, Iddesleigh, Barwick Farm, Ash Lane, Iddesleigh and North Barwick which is empty. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iddesleigh -- I suspect that what we are dealing with here is a deserted medieval village, in this case not wholly deserted. The appropriate course is to include it in an artilce on the parish. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iddesleigh (probably retaining a redirect), per the very sensible, if not clearly-presented guidance in WP:UKCITIES – that small settlements without clear notability of their own should be mentioned in the article of the smallest notable area in which they lie, the parish of Iddesleigh, in this case. Maybe every parish should have a section 'Other settlements in the parish'? —SMALL JIM 17:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again I will ask: Merge what? There is no settlement here, just a private farm house, and the Iddesleigh article doesn't need a mention of all of the nearby private residences. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Gorgan almighty. Unless we have proof (rather than speculation) that Barwick is/was a recognised place, there's nothing to merge. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your dissent - I'm agreeing that we shouldn't have an article, which is what AfD is about. But are there not two [6][7] listed buildings here? Was there not a shire horse stud farm here? These appear to be well-enough verified, and while certainly insufficient for a standalone article, that's just the sort of stuff that would nicely fit in the parent article, which is capable of considerable expansion. I can also confirm that the place has existed since at least 1440, when it was known as Berewyke—(Gover, Mawer & Stenton. The Place-Names of Devon. 1931, p. 94). For the record I am not suggesting that every outlying farmhouse should be included in a parish article. —SMALL JIM 20:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I have no objection to you adding content to the Iddesleigh article. You're free to do so right away, without waiting for the conclusion of this AfD. My only concern is that such information is not suitable for inclusion in that article, and would most likely be removed by other editors who are unaware of this AfD (but not by me). Also I'm very uneasy of AfDs ending in a Merge result, as that effectively creates a mandate for such information to be added to another article, and often results in the AfD'd article continuing to exist for an indeterminate period of time. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what I've spent the afternoon doing. Please feel free to help improve it further. ~~if you can - I still need to add the toponymy.~~ —SMALL JIM 17:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a possible outcome of the AfD process. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like valid content has been merged. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iddesleigh; while it seems that Barwick has not been a "village" as such for at least for the past hundred years, mentioning it as a place of interest is legitimate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 12 March 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A V George[edit]

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

No real notability shown. Orphan, and not really relevent to any other articles. Mdann52 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Item 6 of WP:PROF applies as "Vice-Chancellor". Criteria 3 for "Fellow" also apply. ... Note to nom: Did you read WP:PROF before you said "No real notability known."? As for "orphan", the first remedy would be to look for references to this person to put in links, so for example in the relevant university articles (which I will now do). "Not really relevent (sic) to any other articles" -- I don't understand this point. This is an encyclopedia. Articles are on independently notable topics. They do not have to be relevant to other articles, although usually they would be. The problem here is not so much with the lack of notability for A. V. George as it is with the lack of coverage of non-US/English-speaking academics. --Lquilter (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is Vice-Chancellor an equivalent position to Provost, or is it more of an honorary title? Ray^Talk 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vice-Chancellor is the head of a University and is the topmost post with executive power. Salih (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vice-Chancellor is chief executive and Mahatma Gandhi University with 1.5 M students would appear to qualify as a major institution, in size at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF C6 then. Ray^Talk 13:46, 7 March 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. J04n(talk page) 23:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas Shrimp Wranglers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable amateur football team that fails WP:GNG. Article was previously kept back in 2005, but I'm guessing notability guidelines were pretty flimsy back then! J Mo 101 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for similar reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Up until 2008, the only truly national level of the Bahamian league was the final game between the winners of the various island leagues. Only clubs that can be shown to have competed in these matches or have competed in the BFA Senior League since 2008 (which appears to be a true nationwide league rather than a league for a specific island) can lay claim to having played at the highest national level and therefore notability. I can find no reference to any of these teams featuring in the BFA Senior League from these links. Despite Quality Superstars apparently winning an island league in 2004, RSSSF shows the national final did not take place in that year, so they do not qualify for notability as they have not played at the highest possible level. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no indication of any of these clubs meeting project specific guidelines as above; no indication the topics have been the subject of significant coverage either. C 679 21:01, 12 March 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. J04n(talk page) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zegeta[edit]

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

Unremarkable video game. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V. Mediran (t • c) 09:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:N. Note that article of the game's creator has just a second ago been speedy deleted for CSD:A7. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Doesn't fail WP:V, I have found sources on it. Definitely fails WP:GNG. Revolution1221 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 March 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. Ged UK 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 World Tour[edit]

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

Useless disambiguation. Many things are referred to as a "2013 World Tour", same with 2012, 2011, 2010... This is what we have categories for. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either way whether this is kept or deleted; I created it after a renaming another article (on a concert tour) that originally had this name. Categories wouldn't cover this page's scope, however—the page covers both sporting and musical events; I can't see how someone searching for the ambiguous term of "2013 world tour" could find what they want using categories. matt (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "2013 world tour" yields all the pages listed on the disambiguation page plus quite a few more. You are correct that this isn't a category either. Looking at the search results makes me think all of the search results would be on the disambiguation page, but that's not particularly useful to create a page of search results. A PTM search of article titles has 6 that would generally not need disambiguation. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And expand. A likely search term which helps the average reader. Articles and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally, I find a disam page more user friendly and less forbidding looking than a category page. I would imagine that casual visitors would feel this even more. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Put it this way - where would you redirect this title? If you come up with a bunch of suggestions, it's better left as a disambiguation page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PTM. This is a partial title match. --DHeyward (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disambiguation pages are harmless and this one is potentially useful. J04n(talk page) 23:35, 12 March 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 06:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovars who have a global impact[edit]

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

Superfluous article as most people mentioned in the article already have their own article. The rest, the ones without own article, fail to convince me of their notability at all. A list of links to articles of notable Kosovars can be added to Republic of Kosovo, but this standalone article is surplus to requirements. The Banner talk 12:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article has been blanked: this is the most recent version before the blanking. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Restored. Please note that this article was a new editor's first contribution and welcome them accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some duplication with List of Kosovo Albanians, although this page doesn't have the same ethnic restriction. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Move relevant content to individual articles, and consider refactoring as a "List of..." article; perhaps merging from List of Kosovo Albanians. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of people from Kosovo, and remove all content other than blue linked names, subregion hailed from, dob, dod, , ethnicity, and a phrase about notability, keeping all reliable sources. redlinked names with sources can remain, but again with only a brief phrase about what they are known for. "global impact" is an impossible to define inclusion criteria for a list, and this article is really an essay which belongs somewhere other than WP. if published somewhere notable, we could use it as a source, but its really WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least merge. We do not have wiki articles like this one, and it is highly POV also. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move the sections to stand-alone articles and redirect the title to List of Kosovo Albanians.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. While the individual bios that constitute the article are not necessarily OR on their own, it is prohibited to synthesize them together to make a list of those with "global impact" without any inclusion criteria of what that means, and I share WhiteWriter's NPOV concern as well. List of Kosovo Albanians already provides the needed navigation list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR, indiscriminate p b p 00:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to use the page to create an article on the broader topic I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 23:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mitcham Korfball Club[edit]

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

This topic about a korfball club appears to fail WP:NSPORTS. Source searches in Google News archives and Books have only yielded tangential and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. There's no specific notability rules for Korfball, and not much specifically about sports teams, so GNG is the most relevant standard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Korfball is hardly a notable sport in UK: I have never heard of it before. This may be the best UK team, but I doubt it merits an article. However, we might use this as a starting point for an article Korfball in England bringing together all English teams. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke Network, Inc.[edit]

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

5-year-old notability tag. Could be notable though. A few items come up in a Google News search. CorporateM (Talk) 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company isn't notable enough to have its own article, if there is a notable parent merge its content onto it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:18, 4 March 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 leaning towards keep. Both sides have strong policy based arguments alongside the usual weak non-policy based arguments such as Dingo1729 in the delete and Raccoon W. in the keep. Some work has been done in this article, and couple of the commentators note that his might be worth saving, but needs a complete rewrite. AFD is not for cleanup and this isn't a serious TNT candidate. Secret ^account 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social issue[edit]

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

I have no idea what this is supposed to be about. WP:TNT seems appropriate. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 08:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having tried on several occasions to make some rational sense of this, it always becomes a dumping ground for individuals' pet hates and theories. It would better gone. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Runs along the lines of your typical dicdef padded with examples. Not entirely sure what it does for us though so I'm open to reasonable reasonings. tutterMouse (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure it even rises to the level of "your typical dicdef padded with examples". It looks more like a parody. What other article could link black cats, abortion and the current unemployment rate in the USA? I think the definition starts out being wrong and everything else is rubbish. I'm not sure that a better article could be written on the subject, so DELETE. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article itself could certainly be made more cogent, the subject appears noteworthy and seems to be the focus of quite a few sociology courses. The article also serves as a main article for a fairly robust category. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Buddy23Lee. - Camyoung54 talk 02:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a good learning experience for social problems courses--what knowledge to accept and what knowledge not to accept (based on their studies). Social problems courses exist at pretty much any university in the sociology department. Revisions need to be made, so offer some revisions rather than deleting the article. And so you know, all the issues in the article are actual social problems by definition of social problems whether you take an objectivist or a subjectivist outlook on social problems. Simply because some cannot discern this fact does not mean that the article should be deleted. Raccoon W. (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - providing students with a good learning experience.....what knowledge to accept and what knowledge not to accept is not and cannot be a justification for having an article with no valid references or supporting publications. It also suggests to me that you are condoning having inaccurate or inappropriate material in the article that the students can use to work out what is, and what is not a social issue. This is absolutely what Wikipedia is not. We should only include that which verifiable and which relates directly to the article title. Please look again at many of the sections and the refs that support the individual issues (obesity, abortion, Health and Medicine, excessive drinking or whatever). Few if any of these refs indicate that the topic is a Social issue. Many of the topics are, in any case, wholly without any references. The article doesn't appear to have a definition that the editors themselves agree about and the whole tone of the content is incredibly subjective and strongly biased towards the norms of the individual editors. It fails WP:NPOV. I do agree that it ought to be able to make an appropriate article based on a sound definition supported by reputable references. The current version is so far from that, that I see nothing that could be readily salvaged and a fresh start might be the only practical way forward. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you have spent any time studying the social sciences you would find that social problems are subjective (e.g., video games versus black cats versus school shootings). There is not one universal thing that makes a social problem a social problem. This may in fact be the point. As for the references, I agree each post needs a legitimate citation and the posts need to accurately portray these references. Perhaps, the definition can be changed to an actual sociological definition. The page is already referring to social problems so each post does not need to indicate it too is a social problem. Raccoon W. (talk)

Does anyone have an actual sociological definition? The only references I see are "X is a social issue" or "X, Y, Z,... are social issues". "Social issue" is a common adjective-noun combination, but without an agreed definition, is it possible to write anything other than an arbitrarily long list of things that someone has described as "social issues"? Dingo1729 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with massive reworks I can see how this article is a significant issue, but the state it's in right now is kinda pathetic. Needs to be re-written from the ground up by someone with experience and knowledge. Command Conquerer Logs 09:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it currently stands. I see there's been some effort to prune this, but I think WP:TNT is the way to go. The proper approach to this article's topic spends far more time on the definition and far less time on the examples. What we have here suffers from POV sampling bias, fatal tonal issues that sometimes rise to the level of explicit advocacy, dubious sourcing -- and absent sourcing of the key definitional elements, and some credible suggestions of copyright violation (at least some of which have now been removed, but still...). I'm generally a supporter of pushing for a WP:HEY redemption of viable-topic articles that find there way to AFD, but I think blowing this one up is the way forward; a viable article on this big-picture topic would include nothing of what is here now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a good article, through it's not a total mess. Nonetheless, the concept of a social issue or similar is notable. If we have no good target for merge, this should be kept, and hopefully, rewritten and improved one day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 8 March 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. J04n(talk page) 23:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Martinez de Azagra y de Miota[edit]

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

Unable to establish WP:N via Google or Google News. links are not helpful. reads like a resume. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 07:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. What's stated in the article does not make him notable, and Google shows little independent coverage. wctaiwan (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources present don't attest to any serious notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The critical fact here seems to be that there's a wealth of sources related to its previous unnamed state. Ged UK 13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow King[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. All coverage I can find is from February, when it was announced that he'd be pushing ahead without Disney's help. I found no coverage prior to this announcement, and none since. Just a brief rush of announcements over the course of two days. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources not currently in the article:

Ben Child (2013-02-05). "Henry Selick seeks new backing for animated film dropped by Disney". Guardian. Retrieved 2013-03-05.
Dave McNary (2013-02-04). "Henry Selick revives 'Shadow King'". Variety. Retrieved 2013-03-05.

Dave McNary (2013-02-05). "Henry Selick revives 'Shadow King': Josh Penn produces stop-motion project". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2013-03-05.

Scott Roxborough (2013-02-04). "Berlin 2013: Henry Selick and Josh Penn Greenlight 'The Shadow King'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2013-03-05.
Ian Sandwell (2013-02-05). "K5 International revives Selick's The Shadow King". Screendaily.com. Retrieved 2013-03-05.
Drew Taylor (2013-02-05). "First Look At Henry Selick's Newly Revived 'The Shadow King'". Blogs.indiewire.com. Retrieved 2013-03-05.

Best, --auburnpilot talk 05:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are still from the same 3-day range, and all of them essentially say the same thing: that Selick will continue to make the movie without Disney's help. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the sources linked above as reference, not because I intended to weigh in on this discussion. But sure... The essay you've linked to as your deletion rational states "A film could merit an article in Wikipedia if it meets any of the various notability criteria as set out by guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability". Can you point out which parts of that guideline this topic fails to meet, also keeping in mind that notability is not temporary? Of the five bullet points under the general notability guideline section, which ones are not being met? By what policy or guideline are you suggesting this article be deleted? --auburnpilot talk 06:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it's WP:ONEEVENT, given that literally 100% of the coverage is saying the same thing about the film at this point. Also WP:TOOSOON since it doesn't seem that any work has been done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err, excuse me TPH, but this is not ONE EVENT for those who look, as Disney's interest in The Shadow King can be traced back many years, despite the more recent coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I saw no other coverage anywhere before this point. WP:PROVEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding or restoring material, but am instead pointing out an often-encountered problem with the Find sources assigned by the AFD template. Please see my longer response below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge if appropriate). Per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation is also acceptable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate as it is receiving coverage as a work-in-progress. In the incubator it can be expanded and sourced until ready for a return to mainspace. While this topic does not quite have the persistent and in-depth coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF, the discussion of planned events IS allowed by policy and guidelines intended as instructional and cautionary, and not exclusionary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article meets all criteria of WP:GNG. As for the WP:TOOSOON, there's "a film might meet inclusion criteria through meeting the General notability guideline" and Other evidence of notability shows "The film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," thereby warranting inclusion. Henry Selick is an established Stop Motion director. The fact he's still going ahead with the film despite its abandonment by Disney represents a pivotal movmement in his career. Part of the Other evidence of notability says "There are circumstances where reliable sources discuss an anticipated event, such as a proposed film, with enough depth and persistence so that discussion of the topic itself might meet notability through the WP:GNG, even without there actually being a film (yet). In such cases the article should not use film article templates, but instead be treated as "film projects" and be presented then as non-film but film-related articles." There are plenty of alternate provisions to simply deleting the article, which should be explored as opposed to its complete erasure. Silver Buizel (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it's a problem that we know literally only one thing about this film? Or that literally 100% of the coverage came in a two day span? All we know is that it will happen. Nothing else has been said yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Chuckle) Certainly not under the title The Shadow King as we learn that THAT title is only a recent event when reading a source speaking about Selick which states "Disney recently dumped his latest film project, leaving it homeless and at one point officially dead in the water. But now it’s picked up a firm title (The Shadow King), a new producer, a new partner, and some new hope." giving us an indicator that any pre-2013 news about Selick's relationship and Disney and this then-untitled project will not be under its current "firm title". Earlier references do exist if one searches for "Henry Selick's untitled stop motion feature". From 2010: Selick is hired by Pixar/Disney.[8] Easily found in a quick look are sources speaking about his "untitled project", we have 2012 speaking in detail about the untitled project being cancelled:[9][10][11][12] So with respects, it is incorrect to imply that "literally 100% of the coverage" is found only in a "two day span." We look further and voila... earlier information IS available.[13] However, the topic was not ready for an article then, though being then a cancelled project might've had it qualify as an exception as allowed under WP:NFF. As the project has been given new life, its detailed SIGCOV in multiple sources then and now make the project notable enough for inclusion somewhere even if not in separate article. It should certainly be spoken of in more detail at the Henry Selick article, AND incubation of the AFD'd article is a suitable alternative to outright deletion... offering a place where policy instructs how souracble information on this production's history and setbacks can be added through collaborative editing until a return to mainspace is deemed merited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per obvious significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Asked to return and voice an opinion, I believe the changes made to the article and the sources linked in my comment above are sufficient to demonstrate the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. I don't see a need for the article to be moved out of mainspace in order to be expanded before being moved back. All articles exist in mainspace as unfinished; some just need more work than others. --auburnpilot talk 00:10, 12 March 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. Ged UK 13:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1971 Topps[edit]

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

Essentially just a list of card sets and types for one year; no notability at all in and of itself, and no real content worth merging to the parent article. Wizardman 05:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this information can best be handled at the decade level. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for this particular year only. The 1971 Topps Baseball set is one of the most famous series they had because of their black borders which made those cards fragile, which in turn made the set meet GNG easily. Here here here all reliable hobby sources, tons of books mentions and many more sources could be found just on that particular set. There is only a few Topps baseball card years I would vote keep on 1952 and 1953 Topps, 1963 Topps (both baseball and football), 1967 Topps and this one. There's a few others that might be worth individual articles depending on GNG, including 1954 and 1955, 1959, 1968, and 1975 Topps baseball, and 1957-58 Topps basketball, and everything else pre 1980s should be merged and post 80s Topps probably delete. Needs needs rewritting, and the content about the other sports sets needs to me removed or merged somewhere as they aren't notable let me see what can I do. Secret ^account 00:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the 1973 baseball set would have adequate sources to meet GNG (although some ma e hard to find now) as the first set in which Topps made the whole set available right from the start of the season, rather than in series. I found this article quickly on line, but I remember magazine articles about this when I was a kid. The 1972 baseball set may also have adequate sourcing available. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Secret ^account 00:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable to me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new article - I agree with Carrite; this can probably be handled at the decade level, but if not merge, then probably keep Go Phightins! 00:36, 13 March 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Companygonj Bodiul Alam High School[edit]

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

Not notable. Would have nominated for csd, but it'd appears that schools are exempt from csd (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Criteria_for_Speedy_Deletion_A7) Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 05:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: High schools can have their own articles in wikipedia as per WP:NHS. Besides, Bangladeshi schools generally have poor online presence, so its hard to find enough reliable sources! --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some sources going through a google search in Bangla which verifies the existence of the school. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verified high school. Experience shows that with enough research, for high schools sources can be found to meet WP:ORG. Therefore time needs to be given for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 23:08, 8 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waverley Old Boys Football Club[edit]

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

Not notable Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 05:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relates to Waverley and Craig Foster articles amongst others. Also, this entry is no different to Locomotive Cove FC which has an article and is a related club. 19:34, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. --99of9 (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 7 March 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. Materialscientist (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suleman Malik[edit]

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

A poorly sourced WP:BLP that appears to be an autobiography. Fails WP:PEOPLE: the subject of the article has accomplished some things that I'm sure are big deals to him (apparently a world record? unsourced, regardless), but are far from a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

It would require a complete rewrite to be fit for inclusion. Alan^(E) 04:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just looking at the initial language finds this; "...is a young I.T. prodigy from Pakistan...", which is a boldly self-promotional statement that makes claims reflective of the authors ideology and desires, not necessarily the public-at-large, thus failing WP:SELFPROMOTION. The claim to a "World Record" drops to YouTube, and is a non-reliable source. Indeed, reads like a autobio. Barada wha? 05:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT I originally contested the CSD of this article (three speedy deletions ago, mind you) for copyright issues because there were no outright copyright issues. Since it is now up for AFD, and after reviewing the subject and the sources associated with it (of which there are none that aren't puff pieces or first party) I would agree with a delete, and salting it to prevent the person making it from recreating it for a 4th time. --Fbifriday (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT – This has gone on too long. I've CSD'd this multiple times only to see it deleted and then recreated a short time later. The guy clearly isn't notable. This has to stop. –TC N7 JM 04:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SALT: As the above people have brought to my attention, this article has been created numerous times, which needs to be stopped. I'm updating my original argument to say that it should be salted, as well. Alan^(E) 05:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A related AFD is going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Secure Layer - one of the subject's inventions. Both articles are authored by the same single-purpose account. As per the current consensus, his product is also very non-notable. Alan^(E) 05:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Created by a now-blocked (using multiple accounts) SPA as likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:59, 7 March 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 Addressing some of the keep votes, the Google News Archives link by Wasted Time R actually turned up empty for me (although this may be to geographical differences), while Stereorock is an assertion more than an argument. However Phil Bridger pointed out that Harder has been covered in a number of books, and so I acknowledge that the keep side of the argument has some merit.

Still, I am calling this a delete based on Gamaliel's comments because the only live link in "external links" is to Chuck Harder's website, while the other link there, local840.com, is a deadlink. Additionally there are some paragraphs in the article that are sourced to in-text external links, having checked them however, [14] has no mention of Harder, [15] redirects to search.com and there is nothing in the archives, [16] is a press release, and [17] also seems to be a personal Chuck Harder website. Had there been any validly sourced statements, then stubbing and rebuilding of the article would have been an option not requiring deletion, but in this case none of the content seems to be BLP-compliant and that does mandate deletion at this point.

This result is without prejudice to another and better sourced article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Harder[edit]

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

Non-noteworthy local radio host, a search on many of the claims in the article cannot be verified and probably don't do enough to garner notability anyway. A WP:PROD tag was removed without much note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced BLP, no indications of real notability. A radio host in Hamilton County, Florida? That's literally the middle of nowhere, basically it has a gas station for the folks driving through on the interstate and that's it. Gamaliel (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept the judgement of my fellow editors that Harder is notable. I still think it should be deleted or stubbed given the large amount of unsourced (and possibly copyright violating) material. Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced material and copyvio text is an editorial action that anyone can take at any time. But deletion is inappropriate and unwarranted here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chuck Harder actually lives in Columbia County, Florida, but you are correct. He was big in the 1990s, and he tried to come back several years ago, but his bad health (he's had several strokes and heart attacks since the early 1980s) has prevented him from doing so. He's had a few interviews on other far right wing radio talk shows, and he still has lots of admirers amongst the so-called "Patriot" anti-government crowd; that's probably why this Wikipedia article stays up. But we can't let one group of people dictate to everyone else what Wikipedia will contain, and how it will be managed.

Keep. Harder was once one of the biggest names in talk radio and was on many stations. Just because he's not popular now doesn't mean he shouldn't have an article. Should we get rid of Burns & Allen?Stereorock (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Burns and Allen article has nine sources, including books, an encyclopedia, and journal articles. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the desire for deletion seems to stem from people who dislike his politics and was a major personality in the past. Burns & Allen had a show in the past too but we should keep it on there. Believe me, I am not a fan of Harder's and would love to nominate Joy Browne for deletion as she's on some 4th-rate network but it's not gonna happen! Allan Freed wound up spinning jazz on some small Long Beach, Ca. station at the end of his career but we keep his listing. Even the poster above me acknowledges that Harder has a following so he's not just some podunk D.J. on some backwater station. Granted, that's where his career is now but it wasn't always that way.Stereorock (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know about WP:AGF. Please keep the unfounded accusations out of the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the Delete comment below yours and you'll see what I was talking about. "He's had a few interviews on other far right wing radio talk shows, and he still has lots of admirers amongst the so-called "Patriot" anti-government crowd; that's probably why this Wikipedia article stays up. But we can't let one group of people dictate to everyone else what Wikipedia will contain, and how it will be managed." The term "far right wing" is usually used as weasel words by liberals to describe anybody they don't agree with. Then there's the comment about how he has lots of admirers amongst the "so-called 'Patriot' anti-government crowd; that's probably why this Wikipedia article stays up." I'm to assume good faith in that statement? Finally, it wasn't signed so I how can I assume good faith on a comment that wasn't attributed in public to any user?Stereorock (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My point is that the desire for deletion seems to stem from people who dislike his politics". Not one single person or comment is specified. So while the comment you singled out now obviously has an axe to grind, you weren't specific or singular, so we didn't have any way of knowing who you were accusing. When you edit political articles you get accused of an agenda pretty much constantly, so I am other editors might think you were talking about us. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look through the first few pages of these Google News Archive Search hits. His show was heard nationally and he and it have been discussed by plenty of well-known, mainstream newspapers around the country. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Books search linked in the nomination demonstrates clear notability. The first two results that I looked at were this one with several pages of coverage and this confirming that Harder's show was carried by 300 radio stations, both from A-list academic publishers. And, for the avoidance of doubt, a large part of doi:10.1080/13563469708406288 is about Harder. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this article is that some parts of it -- specifically the quotes in the middle attributed to "WND" -- read like they were written by either Harder himself or one of his supporters. At the least, these sections need to be removed. I think "WND" stands for "WorldNetDaily" but I'm not absolutely sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.146.239 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Acuna[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization. He fails WP:NMMA and the article's only link is to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMMA, no fights for a top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regional fighter with no top-tier bouts and no solid references. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail WP:GNG, WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 March 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 as hoax Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katipunan Boulevard[edit]

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

There's a "Katipunan Avenue" but never heard of "Katipunan Boulevard". There's no road like this in that area. Apparently a hoax. Kj plma (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having been at the area myself (I have family in the area), it appears there's a "Katipunan Street" near the junction of Quirino Highway and Mindanao Ave. However, this junction is of two grades: Mindanao Ave. goes under Quirino Highway; every intersection near that area is a minor side street. Then the street disappears (ends on a dead end), then the logical continuation a few blocks away is named "Katipunan Ave." (again, different from "the" Katipunan Ave. also from the same city, mailman must be pissed)" then continues until Gen. Luis Street. However, this doesn't seem to be the street the article is describing; nor is the street I described notable enough. So, delete as an elaborate hoax, speedy is possible. –H T D 18:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having no knowledge of the area, I've been looking at google maps of the area, and based on the route information contained in the article, the article does not appear to describe any road in the area. Furthermore, the km measurements just are not plausible. Practically driving around in circles, its still hard to create a route as long as described, but bound by the roads listed. Every reference is either dead, or does not provide any verification. I'm not going to speedy delete the article, as my view on what counts as blatant hoax is conservative, but this is clearly a hoax, and I would not be surprised if someone else does speedy delete it. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 5 March 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 BattleTech#Periphery. Now this one is interesting. Jclemens is correct when he pointed out the page was redirect following the last AFD, and it seems that he is arguing that it should be returned to that state. Except... the target was List of BattleTech locations that was later moved to Geography of the BattleTech universe; and as we see both of those pages are deleted due to the AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geography of the BattleTech universe. I am therefore redirecting to Battletech#Periphery. Obviously, it is not feasible to merge the entire content into that article, but since the history will remain, anyone may merge whatever is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Periphery (BattleTech)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AfD exists). Reason given in PROD was: Giant, unsourced plot summary Illia Connell (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am the PRODder, by the way. My mistake on using PROD. This article is incredibly bloated. It relies entirely on "Sourcebook"s (without proper citations) as sources and thus lacks reliable sources and assertion of notability. The article has more or less existed in its current state since 2010. This article was approved for deletion in December 2007 but based on page history it appears it was never deleted. It was approved for redirect and merge in 2010 ~~but no one ever took the time to do that either~~ but gradually restored over the next few years. Some guy (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I exported the entire history of this article to http://battletech.wikia.com/wiki/Periphery_%28BattleTech%29 in case anyone interested wishes to continue editing there. I ported over other articles of this series that have been deleted on Wikipedia over a year or so ago. Dream Focus 16:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The sad irony here is I started the BattleTech Wikia way back in 2006. I could never round up many contributors, and ending up abandoning the wiki in disappointment when it became clear there was a general preference for Sarna. I honestly had completely forgotten about it. I sort of wish I hadn't remembered, for some reason it's a pretty unhappy memory. Anyway, I left you a message there, please take a look at that it when you get a chance. Additionally, I wouldn't bother exporting pages to MechWikia, as Sarna has been the de facto BattleTech wiki for many years now. I just wish they'd change the color scheme... Some guy (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as appropriate. The nomination is incorrect: for about one month in 2010, the article lived on as a redirect after the 2nd AfD, then was apparently rebuilt by one of the previous contributors. Nothing appears to have been wrong in the process, but if the fictional element still isn't notable, it should be merged to one that is as long as such exist. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. While I'd prefer to see the article reworked and strengthened, it doesn't look like it's going to happen, and I agree that as-is it has a number of problems including a lack of third-party sources to establish notability. (And my experience with the topic makes me doubt whether such sources could be found.) I think the topic could be more succinctly covered as a sub-section within a broader and better-sourced BattleTech article. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also copied this article to wikialpha, which is a wikipedia-like site which is less uptight about notability, and has a growing gaming article collection. Mathewignash (talk) 19:13, 7 March 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 was no consensus Ludwig Augustinsson and delete Hampus Zackrisson. In the former case, while the keep voters did concede that the subject did not literally pass the NFOOTBALL criteria, they do make a reasonable argument that the WP:GNG is met, and that passing NFOOTBALL will happen in the very near future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Augustinsson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, there is no indication that these footballers are notable, little indepth online sources available. Looks like they may become notable in the future once they start playing professionally but not just at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm extremely uninterested in sport myself and therefore I know nothing about Augustinsson and Zackrisson myself, but as far as I can see from the articles on enwp as well as svwp they are both players within Allsvenskan, which according to its article here "is a Swedish professional league for association football clubs. At the top of the Swedish football league system, it is the country's primary football competition [my italics]. /FredrikT (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that neither of them have actually in Allsvenskan. They're both signed to clubs in that league, but neither has appeared in any matches. This scenario is explicitly excluded as a source of notability in WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing; but Augustinsson has made appearances with a Superettan club that, following the last season he played with them, was promoted to Allsvenskan. I assume the Superettan is also a fully professional league? (That doesn't apply to Zackrisson, however.) squibix (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the list fully pro league, Superettan is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zackrisson - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, Keep Augustinsson - even though he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, there are a lot of online coverage about this guy, and this detailed interview and this is pretty detailed from independent reliable sources. There is also this, and this which should be enough to pass the general notability guideline. There are also a whole lot of news-articles with transfer-rumours, and even though those aren't enough to establish notability, some of them are detailed and should be enough to write a very detailed article about him. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zackrisson, Keep Augustinsson. Augustinsson has played competitive for IFK Göteborg in the national cup and will play in the national league in four weeks (unless he gets seriously injured). Yes I know this doesn't satisfy the notability criteria, but let's be sensible here, the article about him will be recreated in less than a month's time if it gets deleted, so why not just keep it for the time being? He has also gained significant coverage in national newspapers. – Elisson • T • C • 11:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Rule recreated as a redirect to Rule and Jeff Love recreated as a redirect to Geoff Love. I personally can't see why The Rule (album) would be a useful redirect to Rule but if anyone else can feel free to create it as one. Jenks24 (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rule[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It seems this article was created back in 2006, crystal-balling success for this band. Well, it seems the band never made it. Their own web pages are dead links, and a single tour with Cyndy Lauper doesn't cut it for making notability, in my view. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, some of these titles should be made redirects. The Rule and The Rule (album) should be redirected to The Rule (disambiguation), while Jeff Love should be redirected to Geoff Love as a misspelling. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks like it was created in 2006, deleted and then created again later that same year. But I can't see much that would establish the band is notable. I've had a look around and can't find much by way of sources. However, I agree with Ego White Tray that many of the redirects will have to be sorted out. Stalwart111 05:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Rule and move The Rule (disambiguation) to this title. The band doesn't seem to have gotten off the ground. Also Delete The Rule (album), since The Rule (disambiguation) lists no other albums by that name yet. Redirect Jeff Love to Geoff Love as a misspelling per Ego White Tray. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, The Rule (disambiguation) redirects to Rule, so we'd just want to redirect it there directly. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:46, 4 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Foster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This nomination may seem a little strange, but the previously deleted Benjamin Foster was a footballer. This one is an MMA fighter with two "semi-pro" bouts who clearly fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't even have a pro fight, much less a pro fight for a top tier organization. Clearly fails WP:NMMA. CaSJer (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No professional bouts, no significant media coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail WP:GNG, WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly NN as yet, Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability per nom. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:15, 10 March 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 and discuss cleanup in talk page Secret ^account 02:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giant rat[edit]

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

Apparently survived VFD back in 2005. This is some bizarre hybrid of disambiguation page and list of "giant rats" in fiction. However, the entire "fiction" section is unsourced OR — few, if any of the works, actually seem to use "giant rat" despite having one. Also, all of the "examples" would not qualify under a dab page, as they are partial title matches at best, or completely unrelated (for instance, I've found no proof that capybara are called "giant rats" in any context). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least in part and subject to possible rename or split. As I noted in deprodding this earlier, Giant rat of Sumatra currently redirects to this article and there's substantial material here about that widely used, referenced, and parodied Holmesian literary motif. As noted in a 2007 New York Times column, there are

at least six “Giant Rat of Sumatra” novels (one of them featuring the Hardy Boys), references in countless other stories including “Watership Down,” a “Doctor Who” episode, and an extended radio-drama parody sketch by the Firesign Theatre troupe, issued on an album in 1974. Non-Sumatran giant rats are even more common in pop culture, from H.G. Wells to the latest fantasy video games, to the point that their very ubiquity merited parody in the Rodents of Unusual Size of William Goldman’s “Princess Bride.”[18]

GNews and GBooks searches reveal show many potential sources to improve this material. Accordingly the section about the Giant rat of Sumatra should not be deleted, although it may be better to move it to its own page. For the moment, I reserve comment about the rest of the material. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Sumatran rat references are enough to sustain an article... and the rest of this is not particularly coatrackish. Essentially I agree with Arxiloxos' assessment that this is improvable material, and meets GNG as-is, regardless of how clearly improvable it is. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Fictional giant rats. That's a notable topic. Real species can be mentioned and/or listed in "See also". To call a real animal a "giant rat" is actually kind of silly. A "rat" is most commonly a medium-size rodent that's not a squirrel. Small rodents are "mice" and large ones are called by more specific names "beaver" or whatever. No living rodent is really giant, like an elephant for instance.Borock (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Giant rat" is definitely a term that is legitimately applied to real animals: the largest members of the Muroidea clade, which includes most animals normally called "mice" and "rats". Examples are Guy Musser's classic papers "Malaysian Murids and the Giant Rat of Sumatra" (referring to Sundamys) and "The Giant Rat of Flores and its Relatives East of Borneo and Bali" (referring to Papagomys). Judging from Google Scholar, the term is used most often for Cricetomys, the African giant or hamster rat. Giantism in rodents is an interesting topic that might deserve an article. Ucucha (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not giantism. This is just some species of rat-like rodents that are naturally larger than other rat-like rodents. Borock (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a phenomenon known as gi(g)antism, commonly in the phrase "insular giantism". Ucucha (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. However most of the proposed "giant" rats are less than 1 kg, unless you count the muskrat which gets up to 2 kg (and is not insular.) Borock (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of fictional rodents. "Giant rats" is no more an encyclopedic topic than "tiny fruits" or "blue fish". Sure you could put together a bunch of random information on the subject, but it wouldn't be an encyclopedia article. Kaldari (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We don't have an article devoted to Big dogs. We don't need an article on big rats. List just lists articles that happen to have "Giant rat" in the title rather than some notable overarching criteria; it has both real and fictional rats and it's devoted to a specific biological classification p b p 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kaldari. This is fundamentally not an encyclopedic topic; I would say transwiki to TV Tropes if that were a thing. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe turn this article into a disambiguation page. I started this page eight years ago, when notability in Wikipedia didn't even exist yet, and was quite different in its original conception. It was mostly about the reality of large rats in the East Indies, mentioned giant rats as frequently recurring fictional perils, then went on to discuss the apocryphal Sherlock Holmes adventure of the Giant Rat of Sumatra, and the several referenced attempts to realize the tale by writers of Sherlockiana. There's probably the germ of several articles there, but the page fell off my radar and was drowned in fictional me-toos. There was worthwhile information in the original, and some remains in there now, but I suspect it needs to be split. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous types of giant rat in both fact and fiction and so a dab-style page is quite sensible. As an example of encyclopaedic coverage, see The Encyclopedia of Animals. The name given to that species in that source is the smooth-tailed giant rat but that's currently a red link and the corresponding article is just a stub. This demonstrates the need for a navigational page to help readers find these poorly-documented animals. Specific aspects such as the Holmes story have great notability and so our editing policy is to develop this material rather than to delete it. See also WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Warden (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"editing policy is to develop this material rather than to delete it". WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy not a notability guideline nor argument for keep. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to re-nom something every eight years. See WP:Consensus can change. p b p 15:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If its only previous deletion attempt was a VfD, that hardly counts anyway. Deletion was very chaotic back then, much more dependent on straight polling with WP:AADD-type arguments all about. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If someone searches for a giant rat, they should get a list of all the articles we have for various creatures with the words "giant" and "rat" in their name, or which are otherwise considered to be giant rats. Dream Focus 02:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you actually supply specific coverage rather than saying WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk)

Woolly Giant Rat, Fossorial Giant Rat, Giant pouched rat, Mountain Giant Sunda Rat, Giant cloud rats, White-eared giant rats, East Timor giant rat, and Tenerife Giant Rat all have "giant" and "rat" in their name. They are all blue linked to their articles which prove they exist. Do we actually need to supply sources to specific coverage that says these are giant rats? If you don't believe anything on the list is in fact sometimes called a giant rat, then discuss it on the talk page, or tag it with a citations needed tag. You don't delete an article simply because you don't like some of the entries. Dream Focus 04:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they have a word or two in common in their titles doesn't justify having this article. I believe I've mentioned this to you before, but if you missed it, here it is again: Notable components doesn't make a list notable, nor does it cause a list to pass WP:NOT. The inverse is true: there can be notable lists of things that don't have Wikipedia articles of their own p b p 05:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you say something, doesn't mean its true. If people search for "giant rat" they come here, to a page listing anything they could be searching for. And these aren't just random words that they just happen to have in their title. These are obviously creatures referred to as giant rats, thus the reason they have "giant rat" in their name. Dream Focus 10:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they pretty much are random words that they just happen to have in their title. Just because they're called "giant rats" doesn't mean that they have anything in common! We've got real rats and fictional rats on the same list; and I seriously doubt that there's a biological order, class, or family that's devoted to "Giant rats", rather then having giant rats spread out across different classes and families, some of which also have normal-sized rats in them. That makes the list a violation of WP:NOT, and therefore something that should be deleted. You're essentially advancing an argument that's a combination of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Both of these are arguments to avoid. As such, your argument should be ignored p b p 14:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just guessing random guidelines and essays to advance your point? Not Inherited deals with people aren't notable because they are related to someone who is, they have to have done something on their own. Nothing to do with this in any possible way. And I wasn't stating something was notable because of how many hits it got on Google, I was pointing out if you heard or read about a giant rat, the article would be useful to help show you a list of all of the species called that. This would be a fine disambig page, to help people who search for one thing, find what they look for. It also works fine as a list article. Dream Focus 18:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same principle of non-inherited applies here. Just because a type of giant rat is notable doesn't mean a list of giant rats is p b p 19:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about an article on the fictional "Giant Rat of Sumatra" and a disambig page "Giant rat" pointing to it and to each real species called "giant rat"? "Fictional rats" can have their own list. I don't think there is a real topic "Giant rat", partly because the word "giant" is not defined well. The two words "giant" and "rat" do sound well together, and produce a scary image to most of us Westerners. I expect in places where people regularly hunt and eat rats of all sizes, ~~like say Sumatra~~ (just read it's 87% Muslim so maybe not), the effect of the phrase would not be the same. Borock (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move this to "List of fictional giant rats", trimming the real rats from it; create Giant rat as a disambig page to keep the list of real "giant rat" species as links and cutting the fictional ones to have a link to "list of fictional giant rats". --MASEM (t) 20:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - 1) Per Ucucha. 2) If we deleted every article that was a stub or lacked proper sourcing we could cut Wikipedia in half. Keep and improve. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A completely vague and empty argument. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, it really irks me when people say "keep and improve" but offer no suggestions on how to improve. I support splitting off the Giant Sumatran to its own article, but the rest is a random catch-all and a WP:PTM. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like badgering of an oppose to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not badgering, it's common sense. Why say "keep and improve" if you don't want to elaborate on how to improve it, or even better, improve it yourself? Just saying "Oh, all it needs is a little work" isn't helping anything if no work is being done, nor any direction given on what work should be done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that in order to properly enter a keep !vote an editor must first commit their editing time to improving the article? If so, to what level exactly, stub, C, B, A, GA, or FA? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily improve it yourself, but at least offer suggestions on how to improve it. Just saying "keep but improve" means nothing if you don't at least elaborate on the "improve" part. That said, there is WP:SOFIXIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons discussed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 March 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 via CSD A7 (Non-admin closure). — sparklism ^hey! 16:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Connection[edit]

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

Band that has not even released a record and has no significant coverage on the net. Article text itself is mostly fluff. Judging from the user page of the editor who created this article (even after it was rejected at Articles for Creation), the editor is likely a member of the band. Fails WP:BAND. Michitaro (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 07:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just speedy delete this as A7? I've tagged it as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Virtual Hymnal[edit]

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

This page describes software invented and sold by the article author. I've checked the internet and there is no evidence that this software is notable -- all links are to pages that sell the software (no independent software or music publisher has picked up the brand; all copies are sold directly by the article author, in some cases through aggregation sites like Amazon). Also, there appears to be no external review or credentialing. In other words, I can find no evidence that this product is notable in the sense that WP requires. Opus33 (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garyrader (talk) It is not true that no independent software or music publisher has picked up the brand. I have edited the Christian Virtual Hymnal page to reflect the fact that Christian Book Distributors asked for a special gold version to publish themselves. They would not publish something like this unless they had closely reviewed it. Similarly for Apple. This program stands in a genre by itself. So I cannot compare it to any pages of similar programs at wikipedia. However I see that at least a quarter of the entries under scorewriters at wikipedia have no valid references/no independent publishers and I wonder why they are allowed to have wikipedia pages. Also the technology underlying the Christian Virtual Hymnal was picked up by independent music publishers: namely Integrity Music and Brentwood-Benson (now owned by Sony) as stated on the MusicEase page. The difference is that I used their content for them instead of the pd content used in the Christian Virtual Hymnal. I am kind of new at this so sorry if the format of this is not correct. Garyrader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. sources provided are not totally independently of the subject. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tahigo[edit]

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

Notability not established. atnair (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. - Mr X 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:22, 4 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timmion Records[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP, "No inherited notability" from releasing a record from Nicole Willis. I can't find any independant coverage in reliable sources. Reads quite WP:PROMO too. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While records from a few notable artists appear to have been released on this label, I'm unable to find coverage beyond "(name of album), released on Timmion Records, ..." This does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Gong show 00:21, 11 March 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 soft delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game Over Cycles[edit]

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

It seems like a nice company, but failing WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The refs cited don't look very reliable, through I am open to being corrected. They are certainly not major Polish sources; niche magazines, perhaps, confirming some very niche awards? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 4 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oti Krishnamaichi[edit]

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

no proper references.non notable movie,with an unqualified reference. Davidjohn13 (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nomination. Worth noting that article creator is problematic and is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources for this film; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gong show 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Underdogs (production team). The discussion had no quorum, but from the two comments here a redirect outcome should be appropriate. Der yck C. 15:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Fred[edit]

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

Apart from working with The Underdogs production team, she holds no stand-alone notability. Status 03:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Underdogs (production team), the team with which this person won her Grammy, and whose page lists her as a past member; no in-depth coverage found individually. Gong show 00:13, 11 March 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 Grenada–United States relations. Nothing worth merging that isn't already in the target article. Jenks24 (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Grenada in Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage for example about the building or actions of the embassy. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Grenada–United States relations. Neutrality^talk 08:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as not notable: Grenada–United States relations are notable, with the war and everything, but this embassy isn't of any significance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 4 March 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 nomination withdrawn. Der yck C. 15:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kitces[edit]

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

Note for an Admin - AfD Withdrawn without delete !vote to allow improvement per DGG suggestion. Finplanwiki - it is up to you to make the improvements, soon please.--Nixie9✉ 12:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vanity page of a working financial planner. I let it slide initially, but he has continued to add self promotional content to the point where the article just needs to be cut out. References the company bio and own articles, otherwise promotional industry blogs. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO Nixie9✉ 13:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "vanity page" - I have posted several pages of notable people in our industry, including Marv Tuttle and Alexandra Armstrong, and think Kitces should qualify too. I'm sorry if I wasn't supposed to reference his company bio, but it had a lot of background information about him when I was getting started on this. Within our industry, he has already won awards and made well-known contributions to the industry that meet the criteria you set forth in WP:ANYBIO. I think he's the youngest recipient ever of a Heart of Planning award (not positive though). And as far as I know, User:Mkitces has only posted in the talk for his page, not updates to the article itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, you can also see Kitces has much research cited in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Michael+Kitces%22) and hundreds of books and articles (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Michael+Kitces%22). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this discussion about the Wikipedia page that was created for me, and will abide by whatever the Wikipedia community decides, although as "Finplanwiki" notes I have not been logging into my Wikipedia account here to modify this entry about me. Regarding the discussion that occurred earlier about my involvement with NexGen and whether it should be part of my entry, I would note that the story that is relayed here actually came from the book "The History of Financial Planning" by Brandon and Welch at books.google.com/books?isbn=0470553790. See page 202. Mkitces (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC) MKitces[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - The article of Michael Kitces was recently discussed in an article on Advisor One (http://www.advisorone.com/2013/02/22/facebook-linkedin-heres-the-ultimate-web-marketing). The article was about someone who gets paid to edit Wikipedia. The article was also brought to the attention of Wikipedia editors on February 25, 2013 via the Signpost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-25/In_the_media). This was the same day that this article was nominated for deletion. After doing a little research, I see that paid editing is not something that is encouraged on Wikipedia. I would like to point out that the article that I referenced on Advisor One used the Wikipedia article of Michael Kitces as an example of a financial planner who has a Wikipedia article, not an example of an article that was paid for. I will also disclose that although I do not have any other edits and have consulted with others about this page, I am not being paid to leave this comment. I will tell you that I am a member of the financial community and I know Mr. Kitces personally which could be a conflict of interest so I will refrain from doing any edits on the article itself. However, I will vote to keep this article and point out some reasons why Mr. Kitces is notable.

Let’s start with his article topic page on the Wall Street Journal (http://topics.wsj.com/person/K/michael-kitces/7185). He has approximately 15 articles that talk about him or use him as the person in the industry where the information for the article was obtained.

His column “Nerd’s Eye View” has been used (naming him personally) in stories in various popular financial magazines including Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timmaurer/2012/02/02/hey-financial-planners-do-your-job/), Forbes again (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/risk-asset-allocation-intelligent-investing-pricing.html), Forbes a 3rd time (http://www.forbes.com/sites/hanisarji/2013/01/06/more-estate-tax-changes-could-follow-fiscal-cliff-deal/), and Forbes again (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/07/26/anything-but-market-timing/), here is the Forbes topic page showing even more Forbes articles (http://www.forbes.com/search/?q=kitces), Financial Planning Pad (PR3 site) has a topic page showing numerous articles using him as the financial expert (http://fppad.com/tag/michael-kitces/), Morningstar article (http://advisor.morningstar.com/advisorregistrationpages/Login.aspx?vurl=http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/42987651/an-interview-with-michael-kitces.htm - You must have an account) (Morningstar also must be accepted by the Wikipedia community as they have their own article here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morningstar,_Inc.), Financial Planning Association (http://www.fpanet.org/professionals/PressRoom/PressReleases/FPANAMESMICHAELKITCESTONEWROLEOFPRACTITIONEREDITOR/) (they also have their own Wikipedia article).

Oh, he is also an author as well as a regular contributor in financial publications. Here is the list of his 4 books on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Michael%20E.%20Kitces&search-alias=books&sort=relevancerank).

Investment News (a PR6 website) cites him as being a “Power Tweeter” in an article about the top 15 financial advisors to follow on Twitter (http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120320/BLOG03/120319896). This website has also been used by Wikipedians more than 50 times in other Wikipedia articles so I believe this would be a reliable source.

Called an industry pundit and was the basis of information for a Medical Executive Post (PR 3 site) article about CPA’s (http://medicalexecutivepost.com/2011/03/23/mike-kitces-asks-what-can-financial-planners-learn-from-suze-orman-and-dave-ramsey/).

Although I did not read the book, he is part of The History of Financial Planning: The Transformation of Financial Services as he previously stated above (http://books.google.com/books?id=FXcKBKsPmAUC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=%22The+History+of+Financial+Planning%22+%22Michael+Kitces%22&source=bl&ots=atuLPOxlad&sig=HIVihXns_GTR2ZamdQZXMkJuqYA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GbI0UYWzK8H1ygHCyIGIAQ&ved=0CHoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22The%20History%20of%20Financial%20Planning%22%20%22Michael%20Kitces%22&f=false). He is also in the book Index Investing For Dummies (http://books.google.com/books?id=WydRvswZ4N8C&pg=PA223&dq=%22Michael+Kitces%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=27g0UcbDMqigyAHK3oFY&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Michael%20Kitces%22&f=false), and many more found on the Google Books search, including Kiplinger’s (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michael+Kitces%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1).

Contributor to Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch (http://www.marketwatch.com/retirement/mentors/stories?authorId=22396)

A contributor to Advisor One (PR5 site) but also has this article about him (http://www.advisorone.com/2012/05/09/michael-kitces-the-2012-ia-25-extended-profile) and this one too (http://www.advisorone.com/2012/12/17/is-kitces-right-on-when-a-cfps-fiduciary-duty-shou).

The nomination of this page was because it is a “vanity piece” which I am not sure that after reading the criteria for article deletion would qualify to be deleted. “Otherwise promotional blogs” including Forbes Magazine and sites with a high PR ranking. Not sure that it fails notability guidelines as there are significant and reliable sources for the article as named previously in my keep vote above. While the nominator may not believe that the sources in the current article are notable enough, a quick search of Google would have shown the notability of Mr. Kitces.

So basically this looks like someone nominated the article as they do not like paid editing. This article should not only be kept, but the nominator warned for using Wikipedia to illustrate a point about paid editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point).--RinkyDink2013 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)— ‎RinkyDink2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment 1 - As the nominator, I was unaware of the paid editor aspects of this article. I was the original reviewer when the article was created, and was prompted to AfD by recent additions only. Personally, I'm not overly put off by paid editors, if they avoid commercial promotion. The issue is that being the author of a blog, resulting in many appearances of the subject's name in reputable publications, is not remotely equivalent to those publications discussing that person. A NY Times reporter may have thousands of bylines without being notable. You need consistent discussion about the subject, with claims to notability. Being the author of 10 books and articles, a member of industry organizations, or editor of an industry publication are not notable. A scientific journal is a different matter. Having your book on a top list, cited by the supreme court, resulting in a major award - those are notable.--Nixie9✉ 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - I'm highly suspicious that two brand new editors are so passionate about this obscure financial planner from Tulsa, and are not connect to, or are not in fact Mr. Kitces.--Nixie9✉ 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE I'm not sure where this discussion of paid editors came from. I'm not a paid editor. I'm a practitioner in the financial planning world, who's written bios about several notable people from our industry, including Kitces (who was actually the 3rd, as I did Marv Tuttle and Alexandra Armstrong first, although none of those pages are flagged for takedown). As for notability, with all due respect it doesn't appear Nixie knows anything about who or what constitutes notability in our industry. The Journal of Financial Planning IS the equivalent of our highest "scientific" journal. The Heart of Financial Planning is one of our profession's highest awards (short of the P. Kemp Fain award). Kitces' research was just cited again this week in the Wall Street Journal (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304491492559684.html). As bio notability states, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Kitces has long since done that, including being mentioned by name in http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Financial-Planning-Transformation/dp/B007PM0F1K for being a co-founder of the NexGen movement. How can you say someone isn't recognized in his field's enduring historical record when he's literally in THE book that IS the recognized historical record for the field! And by the way, Kitces is in Maryland, not Tulsa. Finplanwiki (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 - The WSJ article is quite fortuitous, and does support your subject's notability. Notability is easy to measure, without me being a financial planner. If independent (not the awarding body) reliable publications are discussing him and his awards, that tells me those are notable. Regarding the JFP, he was practitioner editor, not editor, and even being the editor is not notable in and of itself (ie he would need to be independently discussed as an editor who had a notable impact). However, as it appears that his notability is improving, my main concern is that the majority content of the article is self referencing or fluff. As there have been no delete !votes, I can withdraw the AfD, if you would like to scale back the advertorial: basically the entire Publications advertising section (if the books or articles are reviewed and discussed, that's different), the less notable "Accolades" which is an improper section name - and shouldn't be a section at all really. Pretty much everything encyclopedic can merge into one or two sections. The mention of his blog is an ad, with no notability cited - but maybe you can find a reference for it. If an article becomes too advertorial, as is the case here, sometimes deletion and a restart is the best path - right now you can influence that with some scholarly editing.--Nixie9✉ 14:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, as I'm continuing to learn here. The "accolades" section I thought was important because those ARE many of the notability markers within our industry. Financial Planning magazine, Investment News, and Investment Advisor (which have all recognized Kitces notability) are the staples of our industry trade magazines (in addition to the JFP as our trade journal). I can certainly change the label - I literally copied it as a template from Harold Evensky, another notable in our industry. Similarly, I copied the list of books and Journal articles as a template from industry notable Dave Yeske, as a driver of Kitces' notability are his research and book contributions. If you have alternative suggestions about how to structure/label these, I can certainly change them; not knowing what else to do, I was simply copying templates from other Wikipedia profiles in our industry. In the meantime, I added some references for blog notability, as ironically there was one that Kitces tweeted out today. Finplanwiki (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There are some things I rthat might help . First, the reason the last mentioned WSJ article does not shown notability is because it is not substantially about him. It discussing financial planning for retirement, and interviews several people, including him, and presents their different positions. He's one of them. Were it only or primarily or even substantially about him, it would go a considerable distance to showing notability. Second, being the editor in chief of a major academic journal is proof of notability for an academic, according to WP:PROF. Whether this holds for a professional who is not an academic ,with respect to a professional journal is undetermined.I think it might--but even in WP:PROF, it only applies to the editor in chief. Third, his books are very relevant: he may qualify for notability under WP:CREATIVE, as an author. What is needed here is reviews of his books. If they have had substantial reviews, he qualifies--with the provision that both the books were written with others, and it would need to be shown he was the principal author of both. I see some of the articles are in peer-reviewed journals. They should be separately listed, and the citations to each of them obtained through Google scholar or other indexes. . Fourth, winner of a major national award in one's field is accepted as notability. If the heart of Financial Planning Award is that important, it would help to have more than one article showing it--and the article cited never says the year of the award--it does not even clarify if there is only one per year. Fifth, Tuttle is notable because he has been president of the national professional association in his field. Armstrong's notability is uncertain. Finally, the general principle here is that it is not his work that proves notability, but what independent sources say about his work that proves notability. True, he ultimiately gets it from his work, but the only waywe can judge it is by seeing how others judge him in independent published works/ .

therefore, I would suggest closing the AfD as keep without prejudice to relisting, to allow time for rewriting; I'd be glad to look at a streamlined article. I decided it might be more help if I commented than closed it myself--I cannot do both. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 11 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JumboCast[edit]

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

A college webcast. No sources. Windows Media streaming format! Hard to believe that this article has lasted since 2006. GrapedApe (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web) --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 00:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Kruchkova[edit]

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

A photographer's CV. The claims made therein are modest, and/but unsourced. I wouldn't have thought that this merited an AfD (I'd have thought that a simpler method of disposal would suffice). However, I see that beside the autobiographer, a SPA, and various bots, a number of apparently disinterested humans have also taken the trouble to edit this article (even if only trivially), so presumably they took it seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think a PROD would have done. CV, self-written; unsourced; no sign of RS on a google search, just self-publicity; nothing on a News search. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Competent professional, but no case for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This vanity article exists solely to promote her professional credits and her studio. Fylbecatulous talk 12:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to James Belcher. J04n(talk page) 18:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Belcher[edit]

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

There's nothing to show he was a notable boxer. The only source is a brief mention of him in his brother's biography. I'd suggest a redirect to James Belcher, but I'm not sure he's notable either (but he appears more notable than his brother). Mdtemp (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with his brother James Belcher, where he is briefly mentioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 4 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Levittown Fire Department[edit]

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

Fire departments are, as a general rule, not inherently notable, and this one presents no evidence of being special enough to pass the standard of WP:GNG by way of coverage. Also, the article is promotional, which I find humorous. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company fails organization guideline for wikipedia's notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:07, 4 March 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 redirected to St Mary's School, Worcester. That's what we do with duplicate articles that are plausible search/redirect terms. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary's School, Worcester[edit]

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

This school already has a page (see St Mary's School, Worcester). No need for two pages.

~Acsian88 (talk) 21:52 UTC, 4 March 2013

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