Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 May	6 May >

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) 20:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necessity Village[edit]

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

The was listed for speedy as a non-notable planned event, but no admin has been willing to speedy delete it for the past 48 hours. I think the community should make the decision. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News, not encyclopedia-worty.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that there is coverage in the LA Times would be sufficient to negate a speedy deletion. However, the coverage is routine news reporting from the overall Occupy protests, and has made no lasting impact. There is not much coverage at the time of the event, and none subsequently. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Coverage not sufficient to satisy WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News, not encyclopedic, routine news reporting. LGA _talk^edits 08:01, 9 May 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) 20:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MDFc19[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR generated to support skin care products put forth by Dr. Scharp, needs attention from an expert. reddogsix (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to basically be an advertisement for something under development. PubMed turns up no hits for this, Google searches only come up with advertising materials. Zad68 03:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strictly promotional; even if it were more balanced, the product does not appear to be notable (fails WP:GNG). -- Scray (talk) 16:12, 6 May 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) 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish Democrats[edit]

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

Recreated article about non-notable and barely existent political party. QueenCake (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly non-notable. Can only find minimal coverage on the web. Appears to be a one-man party (and the founder is non-notable), and it no longer even has a website, and the party received only a very small percentage of votes in 2010, hence subject is of no significance. In fact, this article might well be a candidate for speedy deletion as per "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion", as two previous articles on the subject have been deleted (but I don't have access to the previous ones so I can't tell if they were essentially the same).A bit iffy (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would of speedied it normally under A7, before I noticed it was a recreation. Whatever process is used, the article clearly has no place here. QueenCake (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not eligible for G4. Although the previous version contained more information it dates from before the 2010 election and so the claim about 0.9% of the vote in that election needs to be evaluated here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed per above.--Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Martin451 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & A bit iffy. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 May 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) 20:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Brady[edit]

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

Can't find references for notability, and also the subject has requested deletion (WP:Help desk#Removal of page: Gail Brady). ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree notability not established. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit tricky because there are no references (save for IMDB, which anyone can edit), yet because she has appeared in multiple notable films (according to her page, at least. Searching the three films that the "filmography" section of the article links to turns up nothing for "Gail Brady" and when I look at the history, she not only added it to the section, she created the section) she deserves an article. I say delete for now until independent coverage improves.--Laun chba ller 00:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her IMDb credits are far from establishing her notability, and I couldn't find any media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor roles only, cannot find any significant coverage.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should actually be a Speedy delete because BLPs are required to have reliable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no that would be a WP:BLPPROD, which doesn't apply here because the article was created before March 18, 2010.--ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR. ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 6 May 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) Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tight Screw[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG same as the last AFD. Absolutely nothing in the news on this since the few brief mentions last year. The operation never happened. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The operation is proposed and may be underway, and the article is important, has sources, and should be kept. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SNOW, after two AfDs, Darkness Shines is just being tedious. Mar4d (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan) per above and the article has enough sources. Can also be treated as a military history article... notability has been established and sources do not need to continue to talk about it. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The nominator provides no reason for nominating again, when his two previous nominations failed and the most recent one was less than six months ago. The subject was notable in October 2012 so it's still notable now, even if it's received no more coverage: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Darkness Shines, please stop nominating this article. Dricherby (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? It was not notable then, it is not notable now. It had no coverage then, it still has none as it never happened. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But tedious nomination, again and again is not appropriate. It is proposed, and may be carried out any time by the Pakistan Army. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fake article, you cannot have an article on something which has never happened. And to say "it may be" does not mean it will, read WP:CRYSTAL Darkness Shines (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not for "it may be". It's ready, and the waiting is for the consent of the government, and the supplies. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have have an article on something that never happened: Operation Sealion and yeti, for example. The article is sourced and two of those mention "Operation Tight Screw" by name. Passing the previous AfD indicates consensus that the topic is sufficiently notable and you shouldn't keep renominating to try to get the result you want. Dricherby (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Sources please Faizan, The Long War Journal tells a different tale. Dricherby there is a world of difference between something historical and something which was a rumor to begin with and never materialized. And I am not getting what the The Yeti has to do with this? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Totally Agreed with Dricherby. There is no conformation of this "never materialization". Faizan -Let's talk! 13:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even Pakistan does not know if it will happen "In the spring of 2010, Pakistan held out similar promises to the U.S.; that October, it claimed to be conducting stealth attacks on jihadists. Then, in May 2011, it again claimed to be planning an offensive which never materialised. Even if it does act, the record suggests there is no guarantee of even limited success."[1] "It was due to the rumours spread by external media and also unfortunately by our internal political parties and media that in the recent past, reports of military operation in North Waziristan caused a lot of panic among the majority of locals who began fleeing the area."[2] "We might, if necessary, undertake operations in NWA, in the timeframe of our choosing and requirements" as "determined only by our political and military requirements. It will never be a result of any outside pressure."[3] Never happened, nor is it about to Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the LWJ "Interior Minister Rehman Malik has just informed us that the Pakistani military is not about to launch an operation in North Waziristan"[4] Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the yeti as an example of something which doesn't exist, has never existed, but is still notable because people talk about it a lot. My point is that, even if Tight Screw is just rumour and the Pakistani military was never even planning such a thing, the topic can still be notable if enough reliable sources talk about it. Your argument appears to be that the topic is not notable because the operation either does not exist or exists only as plans but this is not a valid argument. Dricherby (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough, perhaps a redirect to War in North-West Pakistan would be more appropriate. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has not (yet?) happened, but it has notably not happened. Some more sources that are not cited in the article: [5][6][7][8]. The nomination is misguided, if not tendentious, as it gives no reason why the consensus in the last AfD discussion should change. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple reliable sources give in-depth coverage on the subject of this AfD. Therefore, the subject appears to pass WP:GNG, and thus should not be deleted. Most of the sources I found, are not sources from the West, but that does not make those sources any less reliable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confused keep. I haven't been able to locate a notability guideline specifically for military operations, so all I have to go on is WP:EVENT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not existing does not mean something is not notable. Also Notability is not temporary - this achieved notability at one point, it doesn't "lose it" because the operation has failed to materialise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 11 May 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 Finnila's Finnish Baths. The summary of the discussion as I see it is the following. Finnila is likely notable, however, none of the available sources sufficiently and in depth describes hs activities. (Note that some of the links are dead). Better sources can be found in the libraries, and in expectation for these to be found, the best solution proposed is to redirect the article. If/when sources are found, it can be restored, the whole editing history remains intact.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Finnila[edit]

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

Non-notable civil engineer and Finnish bath owner —teb728 t c 22:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of the article makes little mention of Finnila. I'm not sure if Finnila is notable or not but don't be drawn into making assumptions just from the article's length! There's a huge amount of WP:COATRACK in there, along the lines of "Finnila was tangentially involved in X so now I'll spend a couple of hundred words talking about X without mentioning Finnila again." I've trimmed away about half the text as completely irrelevant (for example, a very lengthy description of "Little Scandinavia" that mentioned Finnila only once and only in passing), the long WP:COPYVIO quote from a novel and the three infoboxes taken from other pages. Certainly, if the article is to be kept, it needs much more work. For example, the claim that he was the second-most important person on the Golden Gate Bridge project seems rather overblown: surely, that would be trivial to check with Google, if it were true? I suspect that, if this article were to be trimmed down to be about Finnila alone, there wouldn't be very much left that was out of the ordinary. Dricherby (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even after your deletions, most of what remains is about Finnila's Finnish Baths and Alfred Finnila's parents. Although the bath house may be notable, I can't find any indication that Alfred Finnila is notable; his article might even fail A7. —teb728 t c 02:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point: I've now deleted the section that were only about the bath houses. Dricherby (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of things he was associated with were interesting and perhaps notable in themselves, but that's not enough to make him notable, due to WP:NOTINHERITED. Qworty (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've not been able to find any real notability. In addition to the WP:COATRACKing noted above, the article also has a tendency to overstate the subject's importance: for example, the phrase "assistant civil engineer of California" sounds almost like the deputy chief civil engineer of the state; in reality, assistant civil engineer appears to be a relatively junior position like assistant professor (and you wouldn't call an assistant professor at UCLA "assistant professor of California"). We're left with somebody who worked on the Golden Gate Bridge, inherited a few bathhouses from his parents and ran a geothermal drilling company which I infer was unremarkable since the article doesn't even give its name. Dricherby (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That exactly is another aspect which makes the Alfred Finnila story even more remarkable and worthy of presentation in Wikipedia. This point indeed needs to be better emphasized in the article too: Finnila achieved all this at a very young age. What does this tell us about his skills, talent and work ethic, which led to the remarkable achievements? Just the fact alone, that he was the one chosen to design the famous Bridge Round House^[1], which was built immediately following the completion of the bridge, speaks for itself, even if we set aside all sources relating to the other issues. Undoubtedly, if there would have been anyone better available for the task, they would have been given the job. Why ruin the ambiance of the entirety of the Golden Gate Bridge project at this stage any more, when practically all eyes now were on this final topping on the cake, the completion of Bridge Round House, built adjacent to the bridge. Although Finnila had started working on the bridge construction first as a time-keeper in 1933, he was rapidly promoted to carry big responsibilities. That remarkable rise of Finnila is presented in the newspaper article, which has been used as a source in the Wikipedia article. A large size picture of Finnila is featured in the newspaper article as well.

How is it possible then that Finnila was so good in what he was doing, and at so young age too? Answer: Alfred Finnila was an extraordinary man, with an extraordinary upbringing. He had got a unique and powerful head start in his construction studies, compared to his fellow engineering students and his co-workers. Alfred was the only son in his family. He had wanted to participate in the construction projects of his father's construction business already at a very young age. Alfred Finnila's sister too started "working" at a young age, at the age of only five years already, to help out at the front counter of Finnila's Finnish Baths.^[2]

In 1932, Alfred Finnila finished the construction of his own bathhouse on San Francisco's Market Street, with a unique design and technical operating systems which he himself had designed. The new bathhouse included an elaborate embedded gas-pipeline system, designed for the heating of the hot rocks of a large number of sauna rooms. The system was one of a kind, not countered elsewhere. When Alfred Finnila began running his own businesses from his own offices at 2280 Market Street in 1932, he had just turned 19 years old. However - despite of his young age -, Alfred was already an experienced "master builder" in his own right at that point, thought by his father and the skillful working men of his father, who had helped to rebuild the City of San Francisco after the devastating 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The special skills of theirs and the special skills related to the construction of buildings and bending of metal which had ran in the Finnila family over a long time period, were transferred to Alfred Finnila. Alfred's uncle had from the late 1800s onward ran a successful baking oven manufacturing business in the City of Los Angeles in California. He too had participated in the upbringing of Alfred Finnila. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for keeping the page. Almost everything above is your personal opinion of Finnila and I am worried that this opinion is so positive that it would be very hard for you to write a balanced article on him. Your conclusions drawn from him being asked to design the Bridge Round House and that Finnila was "an extraordinary man with an extraordinary upbringing" are entirely original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. Also, what you have written about Finnila's childhood is not at all out of the ordinary: it is perfectly common for children to help out in family businesses. Every bathhouse is unique so sources would be required to show that Finnila's design was significant, rather than just the solution to the specific problems of building a bathhouse in that location. My belief remains that Finnila is a minor figure, whose importance has been dramatically and consistently overstated by a very enthusiastic editor. Dricherby (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my personal views. If someone else would have been chosen to oversee these projects, an article about him/her would deserve to be in Wikipedia. For us to speculate why exactly Finnila was given these responsibilities, e.g. the designing of Bridge Round House is rather pointless. What counts and what needs to be revealed in Wikipedia is that it was he who was pointed for these tasks, and that it was he who built the Finnila's bathhouse on San Francisco's Market Street, and that he ran Finnila's for seven decades, etc. Like this article, the similar type of article about Adolph Sutro deserves to be in Wikipedia as well, although - unlike Alfred Finnila - Sutro did not personally build his bathhouse, nor did he oversee the main works of Golden Gate Bridge, etc. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comments on his job title, the 1937 Yearbook of the American Society of Civil Engineers [9] describes him as just "Eng. Draftsman"; but contains many other people described as "Asst. Engr." Since "Engr." means "engineer", I infer that an "Eng. Draftsman" is an "engineering draftsman", rather than an "engineer and draftsman". This is consistent with him not having left college yet: he wouldn't be titled "engineer" without a degree. Dricherby (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are unanswered questions to us, for now:

1. Perhaps that was a state regulated job title to which one could be promoted/entitled under certain circumstances in the 1930s, even though the person might not have graduated from their engineering school as of yet.

2. Perhaps the title was given to Finnila in the end of the bridge construction in 1937, after he had just graduated in the springtime of the same year.

3. Perhaps the "yearbook" which you refer to was published in 1937 - or even in the end of 1936 - before Finnila graduated in the springtime of 1937 - etc.

What ever the case may be, I am happy with the other title which you brought up as well. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. By deleting, we would promote criteria, based on which countless articles should be deleted. It is one of the purposes of Wikipedia to present the individuals in charge of the building and operating of various "landmark" type projects and businesses. If not presented, Wikipedia would be a much less useful tool for search of information. This article meets the criteria for what is generally accepted as notable in Wikipedia. The article was already improved. However, it can be further improved to better emphasize the significance of Alfred Finnila in relation to e.g. the following key matters:

Golden Gate Bridge - in this and other similar projects, there are those who clearly were of special importance and in charge of notably more than others. Such is the case of Alfred Finnila in the construction of the world famous Golden Gate Bridge. During the critical final years of the uplifting of the bridge's main structure, Finnila oversaw all of the bridge's ironing work and half of the bridge's roadwork. Accordingly - precisely for this reason -, The San Francisco Examiner in May of 1982 presented Alfred Finnila as the "Assistant Civil Engineer of California", who was a key contributor for the completion of the Golden Gate Bridge work. ^[3]
Bridge Round House - the Art Deco design of the famous Bridge Round House was completed by Alfred Finnila in 1938, immediately following the completion of the construction of the adjacent Golden Gate Bridge. ^[1]^[4]
Finnila's Finnish Baths - Alfred Finnila designed and built the famous bathhouse on San Francisco's Market Street, and he then oversaw its operations as general manager for seven decades. Finnila's was a popular and important element in the history of San Francisco's Castro District.^[3]^[5]^[6] Still shortly before closing its popular Market Street location in San Francisco in the 1980s, Finnila's Finnish Baths - owned and managed by Alfred Finnila - was awarded with the title "The Best" two times in row by the popular bi-weekly and free San Francisco Bay Area entertainment magazine San Francisco Bay Guardian. According to the paper, Finnila's was "The Best Sauna and Massage Parlor" in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1983 and 1984. ^[7] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Rubert ABC: Of your linked references only one even mentions Alfred Finnila. I don’t have access to the two non-linked references, but I would guess from the titles and how you use them that the first mentions him, and the last does not. What we are looking for is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—significant coverage, not mere mentions. Coverage of the bath house (if it is significant coverage) would qualify the bath house for an article but not its owner. Yes, many articles need to be deleted, and many are deleted every day. —teb728 t c 20:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources directly speak of Alfred Finnila by his name, whereas for instance the Auerbach book discusses the bathhouse and tells how the owner's father had brought the sauna idea with him from Finland, etc. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems unlikely that Stevanne Auerbach's work of fiction constitutes a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The novel provides a description of the bathhouse. In my view, for instance brief quotes of the description can be provided, as long as it is stated that the quotes are form the novel by such and such. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The novel is a work of fiction! The descriptions inside it could be made up. Dricherby (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the point: Although two sources mention his name, but they do not give him significant coverage. It takes significant coverage to demonstrate notability. As for the novel, (even if it were a reliable source) it describes the bathhouse—not Alfred Finnila, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. —teb728 t c 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article by San Francisco Examiner highlights Alfred Finnila and explains his contributions in the bridge construction. The paper provides a large picture of Alfred Finnila as well (he is alone in the picture). That is significant coverage from one source. The website of San Francisco Chronicle correctly reports that the Art Deco of Bridge Round House was designed by Alfred Finnila. Accordingly, these sources have been appropriately used, and the sources meet Wikipedia standards. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubert, Please read Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GNG); it is the standard that the closing admin will use in deciding what to do with the article. As you can see there, a source must give significant coverage in order to be counted as showing notability. And it defines, “‘Significant coverage’ means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.” The San Francisco Chronicle article makes only a trivial mention of Finnila; so (despite your repeatedly citing it) the admin will not consider it in deciding whether to keep the article. —teb728 t c 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths for now. Notable San Franciscan. Unfortunately, you aren't going to discover this from doing a Google search. This is one of those cases where print sources trump electronic records. I will be working with Rubert ABC to help solve this problem. Until then, redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree, Viriditas. Thank you for the assistance. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate This way the page can be worked on and the sourcing issues addressed outside of main space and without the specter of deletion hanging over its head. J04n(talk page) 11:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought that incubation might be helpful, but as I think about it, the problem with the article is not a lack of sources, but that even taking the article’s claims at face value, the subject is not important or significant. He is an unremarkable civil engineer and the unremarkable owner of an at best marginally notable business. —teb728 t c 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there would have been another engineer instead of Finnila carrying these responsibilities at the bridge construction or being in charge of designing Bridge Round House (setting aside Finnila's, etc.), we would have an article about him/her in Wikipedia - or, if there were no article for him/her already, we would need to write one. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that and it's a non-argument. If some other engineer had done these things and somebody had written an article about him, we'd be having the exact same discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Engineer's Name instead. Dricherby (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Save: Appropriately referenced and meets Wikipedia standards. ~ BjornTroms (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sources, appears marginally notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finnila's Finnish Baths (for now), per Viriditas. Miniapolis 14:22, 5 May 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, Dea db eef 21:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep article~~ If someone else would have been chosen to oversee these projects, an article about him/her would deserve to be in Wikipedia. For us to speculate why exactly Finnila was given these responsibilities, e.g. the designing of Bridge Round House is rather pointless. What counts and what needs to be revealed in Wikipedia is that it was he who was pointed for these tasks, and that it was he who built the Finnila's bathhouse on San Francisco's Market Street, and that he ran Finnila's for seven decades, etc. Like this article, the similar type of article about Adolph Sutro deserves to be in Wikipedia as well, although - unlike Alfred Finnila - Sutro did not personally build his bathhouse, nor did he oversee the main works of Golden Gate Bridge, etc. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) duplicate !vote struck. Dricherby (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing Finnila, not Sutro (WP:OTHERSTUFF) and, again, I remind you that the criterion is notability, not some notion of "deservingness". By the way, Sutro was mayor of San Francisco so is immediately notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Dricherby (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But since you want to compare Finnila with Sutro: If Finnila had gone on to become mayor, he would be notable. Or if the bridge had been named the Finnila Bridge in recognition of his envisioning and designing it and securing its financing (compare the Sutro Tunnel). It’s true that Sutro didn’t design the Sutro Baths, and notice that the article doesn’t even mention who the designer was, which shows how important the designer of a bathhouse is. —teb728 t c 10:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those above who see this qualifying - the information is notable enough, and the sources are "adequate". From the article:

Alfred Finnila oversaw all the ironing work and half of the road work of the Golden Gate Bridge, during the uplifting of the bridge's main structure in 1933–1937.^[3] Immediately following the completion of the bridge work, the Art Deco design of the famous Bridge Round House diner was completed by Alfred Finnila at the southeastern end of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1938. ^[1] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would agree that Finnila's contributions to a major birdge make him notable. However at the same time we need to cut down to coat racking and focus the article on Finnila.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comes from significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, not from judgments about whether the person's achievements were important. Dricherby (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ ^a ^b ^c King, John (25 May 2012). "Golden Gate Bridge's Plaza Flawed but Workable". San Francisco Chronicle.
^ Edna Jeffrey Biography and synopsis of her novel, Till I'm with You Again.
^ ^a ^b ^c San Francisco Examiner. May 27, 1982. No. 147, p. 2. Golden Gate Bridge - 45th anniversary of completion.
^ Kligman, David (25 May 2012). "From Sea to Shining Sea: PG&E's Earley Joins Tribute to Golden Gate Bridge". Currents. PG&E.
^ Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest.
^ Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest - Finnila's-related exerts.
^ San Francisco Bay Guardian - N:o 37, 1984.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:34, 13 May 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) 20:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensionaut[edit]

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

Not yet released. WP:CRYSTAL Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL indeed, but even post release would not pass WP:MUSIC (yet).Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The article is premature and would serve only as advertisement for the album, the band, and the album's label. Even though a future release date for the album has been determined, there is nothing to say the album will be released on that date, nor that it will ever be released. The band that recorded the album has no previous releases. If this were a band with prior albums, I could possibly see this article as relevant before the release date. The article creator also has been in personal contact with at least one of the band members amid has admitted that one band member has asked for specific edits at the article on him as well as the band's article. I would assume this article is no exception. While I'm not saying WP:COI definitely applies, because of their personal contact, that makes is a possibility. Winkelvi (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. I am the article's creator. As I have stated before, my interests are in developing an article to Wikipedia's standards, not to cater to the band members. The only reason said band member was in contact with Winkelvi and myself was because he had apparently tried to edit his own page, and had consequently caused the article to be up for speedy deletion. I stepped in to prevent the page from being deleted by reverting all edits by his party, and told him why such edits were not acceptable. In that conversation, the band member told me how he felt the page should have been edited, which I disagreed with. The only contact made has been on a Wikipedia talk page. I am in no way interested in assisting them as Winkelvi seems to believe, and am insulted at the thought. I have previously told this to Winkelvi and have worked with him to clean up the band's page, and fail to see why this article is up for deletion. He seems to be the one who flagged the page for deletion after two weeks of its existence, as indicated in the edit history, and has warred on varying issues with myself on various matters.

He has reworded articles on numerous occasions on the grounds of being overly-sourced and has stripped paragraphs to their bare minimum; some of these revisions have since been reverted or compromises have been made, and the articles remain just fine. The very use of particular sources had to be clarified by a veteran editor, Spanglej, as Winkelvi believed primary sources could not be used at all. He flagged this article for speedy deletion on the grounds of WP:NOTADVERTISING despite being told subsequently there was no unambiguous advertising on the page. Aside from the album being a future release, there seems no other reason to delete the article. If creating this page on the date of release is any more acceptable, so be it. If verifiability is an issue, there have been multiple reviews published within the last few days to verify the album's existence. As I have less experience than others, I would like to hear what justifies the deletion of this article. Vuzor (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three reviews, all published within the past few days, as well as an Allmusic page for the album:

http://www.seenitheardit.com/2013/05/album-review-sound-contact-dimensionaut/

http://www.dawnofthedeaf.co.uk/sound-of-contact-dimensionaut-album-review/

http://www.entertainment-focus.com/music-review/sound-of-contact-live-review/

http://www.allmusic.com/album/dimensionaut-mw0002526275

Here is an image of the album itself, taken by the band from its merchandising desk on their tour:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/600849_499551586779383_589261948_n.jpg

From their Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=499417473459461&set=a.496637487070793.1073741837.135080663226479&type=1&comment_id=1593982&offset=0&total_comments=30

"Sound of Contact Vinyl double album coming in the Fall. Thanks for your support everybody! CDs available at the shows now. Or on Pre order. European release date is May 20th. US is May 28th.

Friday at 10:32pm"

Vuzor (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it says at WP:NALBUMS, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." So merely delaying the article until the date of release will not suffice to show notability. Nothing the band or production company says (or any promotional material) is of any use for demonstrating notability, which has to come from reliable independent third-party sources. The third party sources already suggested might be sufficient, but I don't have time to examine them myself, so I'll have to leave that for others - this is just meant as a bit of help regarding what is needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple track listing at allmusic does not demonstrate notability either - but the three reviews may be sufficient. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed the section about the band's tour and details about the band's touring musicians, as the article is about the album and not the band - brief details of the tour might be appropriate in the band article itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the second time it has been removed, then, because I removed it yesterday for the exact same reason as Boing! and stated as much in the edit summary. The article's creator replaced it. Winkelvi (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you did. I've started a section on the article Talk page. Article creator, please do not re-add the disputed content without gaining a consensus at the Talk page first - repeated re-insertion of disputed content is considered edit warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I am glad the reviews may be enough to prevent the article's deletion. I believe Rolling Stone will be issuing a review of the album, as they did an interview with the band a few weeks ago. They usually release their reviews on the day of each album's release. I will watch closely for that review, as well as others, over the next two weeks. I have no intention of edit warring, but I have previously reverted revisions by Winkelvi that I have disagreed with and that contributed little; such edits actually generated spelling mistakes and awkward wording. To dispute that the band is British-based is as trivial as the edits come. I will keep the page in its current form until the issue is resolved. Hopefully the article can remain. If there is any additional evidence you require in order to keep the page intact, please discuss them. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check that. The reviews have been removed from the page as sources, as they are considered "advertising." Absurd. Absolutely absurd. First primary sources could not be used for biographical information according to Winkelvi, now third-party reviews can not be used? How can notability be proven if the very sources required are forbidden? You said it yourself on your talk page, Winkelvi -- there's still a learning curve. You've been corrected a few times now by more experienced editors. The reason I reverted your revision is because I have difficulty trusting your judgment regarding Wikipedia's guidelines. You have been at odds with me on even the smallest, most miniscule revisions; you've made incorrect grammatical changes, rewritten certain portions without making actual improvements to the article, and have even flipped England and Vancouver in a list for the sake of flipping the two. You've incorrectly flagged pages, and have had other editors correct your assumptions. Your insistence that no primary sources of any kind be used to create the Sound of Contact page caused a major fuss until Spanglej contradicted your assumption. You are the reason I ever had any contact with the aforementioned band member, as I stepped in to explain what on Earth was going on, first telling him primary sources weren't allowed based on your argument, then telling him they were allowed. Your repeated accusations that I have anything to do with the band is extremely ignorant considering the role I played as the mediator while the sides were feuding. I'd like to see more editors look after these pages simply so that change isn't made for the sake of change. Vuzor (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted the removal. The inclusion of links to reviews is pretty standard for music articles, as is a brief mention of whether reviews are good are bad (and they clearly are positive reviews) - not everything that sounds positive is "advertising", and it's important not to become over-zealous about it. Also, as an aside, whatever the notability status of the album is now, I feel sure it will be notable some day or other because of who is in the band. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for primary sources, they can be used to confirm factual statements in various circumstances - for example, the best evidence for "X said Y" might be a source in which X actually said Y. The problem with primary sources is that they are not sufficient for providing notability, or in many cases for supporting factual claims (for example, a primary source might support "X said Y", while not supporting the truth of "Y"). But once we have suitable secondary sources, primary sources can be used additionally - but it depends on circumstances. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really appreciating Vuzor's tone and the borderline incivility and personal attacks. Yes, I still consider myself on a learning curve here. That doesn't mean I am "ignorant" as he has said above. It also doesn't mean I deserve to be raked over the coals and have all my mistakes aired here. This isn't the place for it and it's just inappropriate, period. His inappropriate comments lead me to believe he's taking this personally. It's not personal. I've told him that on his talk page. Now I have to wonder why he's taking it personally. Beyond all that, his laundry list of my mistakes are taking away from the fact that the article shouldn't exist right now for at least one of the reasons listed above: WP:CRYSTAL. Another editor pointed out it wouldn't pass the muster even after the album is released. These are the issues at hand in this forum, not him, not me, and certainly not who made what mistakes when. Can we please take it back to the reason the request for deletion was brought here in the first place? Winkelvi (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any animosity intended here, and a defensive reaction is common when people see their work criticized - even if that criticism is in good faith and well-intentioned. But yes, let's stick to discussing the article and whether it should be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it seemed there was any animosity in my words, I apologize. I have been frustrated by his accusations of myself having any relationship with the band, a claim I have denied several times. I would like to move past that, but it continues to be brought up as if repeating it would somehow make it more valid. It's entirely unfair. That was one of the reasons this article was flagged, though there is absolutely no truth to it. I am fine with this article facing adversity. It provides us all with a learning experience and allows us to become better editors as a result. I certainly welcome returning to the discussion about the article. We seem to have cleared up the issue of WP:NALBUMS by citing reviews to confirm its presence within and beyond the music industry. Please confirm if there is anything more to that specific issue. If not, the only issue, as Winkelvi has said above is WP:CRYSTAL. In that case, once the album is released that hurdle would be conquered, wouldn't it? Let me know the circumstances regarding what specifically would resolve WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once the album is released, what exactly would distinguish this article from being one that can exist? That question may help to resolve this debate. Vuzor (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which means sources talking about the album in some depth rather than just confirming its existence. I'd say reasonably in-depth reviews by mainstream sources should do it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love twins[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO, all but one nom scene-related. No nontrivial relevant GNews or GBooks hits or reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO, which states "has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography", in this case, twin porn. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough coverage by XBIZ and AVN in the article to satisfy the GNG for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails WP:BIO and even the dubious WP:PORNBIO. They were not the first twins to make porn films. Do you think there were no twins appearing in porn before 2007 or whenever these two started? Such a claim that they "began a trend" is not adequately supported.The article is more of an advert than a bio. Is "Love" really their last name? I expect a bio article for an individual living in the present day to include actual referenced bio details. Edison (talk) 02:15, 29 April 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, Dea db eef 20:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pseudobiography about subjects which fail GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite reasoning indeed.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:26, 6 May 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 World Fighting Alliance. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Fighting Alliance 1[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as the only coverage I can find is WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and results. TreyGeek (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect all three to World Fighting Alliance. These articles contain WP:IINFO, indiscriminate information; they are already covered at the suggested target; and there is nothing that needs to be merged. Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To World Fighting Alliance. Also ought to move the information to table form and add it to the main page so the information isn't lost. Luchuslu (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Fighting Alliance There's really nothing to save from those articles (which mainly consist of fight results).Mdtemp (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Fighting Alliance — Poison Whiskey 22:28, 9 May 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. SNOW Alexf^(talk) 05:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Of The Fallen[edit]

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

Unsourced story that isn't written in an encyclopedic form. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 18:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1: fiction writing without a central point. Nothing to check for notability since the text isn't about anything. czar · · 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would hesitate to speedy it for lack of context - it clearly gives the context. As to the story - a rather pretentious bit of stuff. Not even Clark Ashton Smith would have written like that, nor would that other master of verbosity for effect, Jack Vance. Anyway, it's not encyclopaedic. Not for the inaccuracies. Maelstroms are whirlpools and don't usually have pits you can rise from, and a fortress of brimstone would be of little use as brimstone is sulphur and not very strong architecturally. It can be strong in smell... No, it is not encyclopaedic through being an original story, and belongs on a Facebook page as it's not long enough to merit a Kindle edition at Amazon. Note to the author - It's not all that bad, actually. Watch your spelling and check things like maelstroms and brimstone before you use them. Tone down the wording, and it could be made into something longer that could have a Kindle edition. A lot longer - you need about 60 to 70 thousand words. Forty at the least. Or 15 to 20 coupled with two more stories of the same length. Not guaranteeing it would sell, but doesn't cost much (if anything). Good practice, anyway. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (un)original fiction. There really should be a new speedy category for this sort of thing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Soulfly_discography#Singles. As a story, this is not notable. It's something someone came up with one day. However a search did bring up that Soulfly made a single by this name and there's merit in having this title redirect to their discography. I wish the original author luck, but this is not the right place to promote your work. Given that this is based off of something else, fanfiction.net would probably be a better place to post this and I can guarantee that you'd get a better reception than if you were to post it here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man–machine dilemma[edit]

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

Per prior prod by User:Randykitty: "Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable. Possible copyvio of http://www.amazon.fr/Neuroepistemology-YURI-ZAMBRANO/dp/130008670X/ref=sr_1_72?ie=UTF8&qid=1357775331&sr=8-72" BarrelProof (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and Keep. I fully agree that the page, in its current state, is a dismal mess. However, there seem to be (per the links above) multiple scholarly and book sources that discuss the term with respect to Gandhi and the Rorschach test, so the subject is probably notable. Alternatively, perhaps it could be made a redirect to Human–computer interaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The article is non-salvageable. There is virtually no real secondary literature on this specific topic. The article merely uses various sources to advance a novel position. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content of the article has so many problems that it is not worth trying to fix. Disagree with stubifying because the content is in other articles having to do with artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the original PRODder. If there is good material as Tryptofish thinks), there is no prejudice against re-creating the article (perhaps under a better title). --Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbfy: Text like "must find its bedrocks by researching the possibility whether machines boast consciential features" seems to be some sort of machine-written spam, but other portions suggest this is really just a bad article. Nevertheless, the topic itself seems real enough, so I heartily recommend leaving a stub. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The purpose of the article seems poorly defined; at best it is only implied. Further, I have to ask whether this article covers any material that isn't already presented in 'Philosophy of artificial intelligence'? Perhaps a merge is in order, if there is anything worth salvaging. Praemonitus (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article may have something to do with a topic that deserves to be kept in Wikipedia, but it is so poorly written and difficult to understand that it would be better to start over, if this topic even needs a separate article of its own (it may be already covered in another article, per Robert McClenon and Praemonitus). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad James[edit]

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

Fails WP:Athlete. Couldn't find any more sources that supports notability Yankees10 17:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Athlete and no other notability either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet the notability criteria for minor league players at WP:BASEBALL/N. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BASEBALL/N and the above. That said, I think WP:USUAL applies as well - if he is indeed a top prospect, and ends up with a major league club, then you have a much better case for notability. He isn't exactly a young kid, though, but who knows? Until then, sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:54, 9 May 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 under CSD A1 by Acroterion. (non-admin closure) Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 19:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5th May Incident (Malaysia)[edit]

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

I'm guessing this is speedy deletable, but I am AfDing it to be sure. The only news out of Malaysia is their election today. I am guessing this has something to do with that. Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A particular incident cannot have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. If necessary, information about the event can be added to the article May 5 or somewhere around. smtchahal^(talk) 17:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just marked it for speedy deletion per the G10 criteria. This seems to be an attack to the Malaysian democracy. smtchahal^(talk) 17:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go Green Pakistan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, not notable, just a social networking group. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan) Per nom. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 15:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 05:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JATO Rocket Car[edit]

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

This "article" such that it is, is essentially 100 percent "trivia", it is not "encyclopedic" in any way. A more appropriate forum for this subject would be Snopes, not Wikipedia. =//= Johnny Squeaky 16:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It comes up. People want to look it up. They hear about it, they wanna see if it was an urban legend, or debunked, or real. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.78.30 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — 12.152.78.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It's perhaps a trivial topic (although that doesn't stop us with Honey Boo Boo or Pokemon), but it's a trivial topic that is widely discussed by a range of independent sources. The coverage of this urban legend is based on these sources, and seems robust. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep: The fact that we all know exactly what this article is about is a clear indication of its GNG in terms of a cultural phenomenon. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure why the article doesn't mention The Darwin Awards (film) where this was prominently featured and discussed and analyzed from a spoof perspective. Tons of other secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may well be "widely discussed by a range of independent sources" but in which case why are they not cited in the article ? absent any RELIABLE independent sources being added to the article it fails the WP:V policy and should be deleted. LGA _talk^edits 07:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"why are they not cited in the article" - lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:24, 9 May 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Green[edit]

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

POV fork of Shades_of_green#Pakistan_green & Green in Islam, in fact everything in this article seems to have been copied and pasted from those. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not a POV fork when an article is expanded from the parent article. It's the extension of the same article. Parent article is obvious to have a summary of this article, hence the similarity of content but this article is not a copy paste of that. It has more information than that one. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been expanded from the other article, it has been copied and pasted from it. There is nothing new there to warrant a new article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a notable article, agreed with Top Gun, it should be kept. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability guidelines. A colour is a colour, and colours have their own articles. This is a real colour, as indicated by the fact that it has its own hex triplet #006600. It is also the national colour of Pakistan, being the colour of the flag of Pakistan and many other national symbols. Obvious notability, and obvious keep. Mar4d (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass GNG? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in which other national symbols is the colour used please? Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The section on "green in Islam" needs to be deleted as it isn't relevant. After that, there is a single source and it seems oddly tied to the patriotism for a country. There's no reason at all why this warrants a separate article; it doesn't even come close to passing WP:GNG considering that this color has no relevance outside of a country's flag. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant. Green in Islam is directly related to Pakistan. Pakistan was made for Islam, in the name of Islam, and that's wht it's flag is also green. Therefore both the sections and article should be kept. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the clearest example of a pure violation (in intent, not in action) of WP:NPOV I have ever seen. Your own personal opinion is not a proof that content about a religion bears any relation at all to information about the shade of green on some country's flag. It's also quite a strong indication of the lack of objectivity on the part of some of those pushing to keep this article. I would posit to the closing editor that what we're seeing here in terms of patriotism for a certain country should be taken into account when deciding what counts toward consensus and what doesn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not patriotism. I just quoted the facts, but these facts are not commonly accepted abroad. Just to relate the both phenomena, these quotes are necessary are were never ever a violation. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizan I hope that you understand that we are not talking Pakistan's creation right now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That quote was important, well related and relevant. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be, but that does not mean that you put up a whole paragraph just to tell why Green colour is important in Islam, and then why is Islam important to Pakistan, and then why Pakistan's flag is green. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but due to a paragraph, you will delete an article? Better improve the article. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find even a single reliable source for this topic. It fails WP:N. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the references in the article. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are about importance of Green in Islam. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned in any of the references given, and I can't find any WP:RS mentioning the term either after a quick search in English. The dissenting view by the article's creator above that "these facts are not commonly accepted abroad" is an instant warning bell for WP:OR. It's plainly a POV synthesis of Flag of Pakistan and Green in Islam, with nothing of value to redirect or merge. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are just missing Reliable Sources? The article should be improved then, not deleted! See this as a RS. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you series? In that way thee can be a RS for every colour, in fact for every Pokemon! Please try to understand that articles about colours can be kept if they are have some cultural importance. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Pakistan green" is indeed mentioned alongside the hex web colour #006600 on several web developers' websites, but not on any that I would consider WP:RS in terms of any official status of the colour, and as a web development colour it is a non-notable WP:Neologism at best. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (Pakistan) website describes the field simply as "white and dark green" on its official flag page at [10]. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that articles for individual Pokemon have more justification for possible creation than this article. At least we can find independent sources mentioning different Pokemon. There's nothing denoting "Pakistan green" as even being a recognized color. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did not you see the source above? Instead of deletion, it can be improved. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve away then: if you can find reliable sources showing that the colour "Pakistan green" is notable then I'd be happy to change my vote. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these enough?: 1, 2, 3, 4(With reference to Muslims), 5. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's four non-notable web dev sites, already discounted above, plus a non-notable blog post about the colour green that mentions the word "Muslim" but says nothing about Pakistan. I'm sure you can find many more of these, but please save yourself some time by first reading WP:RS. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The colour is quite important as well as quite popular. The official websites just say it to be dark green, though it is more darker than that. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 07:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it WP:Notable? How is it important? How do we know it's darker than dark green, if the official websites only say "dark green"? Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all websites only say "Dark Green". Many sites mention it as "Pakistan Green shade" too, as cited in the sources above. Faizan -Let's talk! 08:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 08:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no evidence of this being used as anything other than a colour in web development, I'm removing the section about the role of the colour green in Islam, and claims of its use in the flag, since there's absolutely nothing cited so far to tie the two together. Your evidence for its notability so far is solely from colour lists for web development. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, my removal of the WP:OR was immediately reverted. What's your rationale for keeping a section about Green in Islam that makes no mention whatsoever of Pakistan? Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you already expected it, why did you do it? Now for your information, I would like to tell you that this is not the case of WP:OR as the article in Britannica also mentions the relation of colour green with Islam. (Have a look at it if you have it) —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 09:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope always beats expectation for me. I cannot find a Britannica article mentioning Pakistan Green: can you please provide the citation? Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be getting worse and worse. Notability is proven when reliable secondary sources significantly cover the topic, so your opinion that this article id notable is completely invalid. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also WP:Articles for deletion/Islamic Green, created by the same editor. The result was merge to Green in Islam. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not "created" by the same editor, please verify yourself in article's history. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created by the same editor, with edit summary "Created the Article about Pakistani Green Shade, information mainly added from Shades of green." Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh.. I meant that existed before with a redirect! Faizan -Let's talk! 12:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But still you will be referred as the creator. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the remaining editors who contributed to WP:Articles for deletion/Islamic Green to contribute here too, since that article was highly similar, differing only in the hex code and the more specific claim of a single country's flag in this article. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources discuss this thing. --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shades of green#Pakistan green. Firstly: content indeed has been copy-pasted from the Shades of green article. Secondly: We do need coverage in reliable sources, even if it's a colour. User:Mar4d says it is notable just because it has its own hex triplet, but there are a lot of colours that have their own hex triplets and yet are not notable. Also, being the colour of just one national flag is not enough to establish notability (reliable sources lack, anyway). Paris Green is an example of a notable colour that indeed has coverage in reliable sources (which is mostly because it is not only a colour but a chemical compound as well). smtchahal^(talk) 16:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RegentsPark. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, no more details are available. I tried to search for some more info but it is repetition. This article can be covered by Shades of Green and Pakistani flag (section for color). Will change my vote if the article is expanded with solid details. Samar ^Talk 09:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOTHOWTO (sources exclusively concern the hex code). Miniapolis 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Vishwanath (author)[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)

Non-notable author lacking ghits and Gnews. reddogsix (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. smtchahal^(talk) 15:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. smtchahal^(talk) 15:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My reasons are:

The author has consistenly featured in the top 100 most popular authors in spirituality by Amazon. This should settle the issue once and for all. The rankings fluctuate so he could have moved few places above or below. [11]
Over 400000 books have been downloaded in the last 12 months which is a highly significant factor.
He has been featured in the top 20 in Stress Management and Hinduism for more than a year. You can see the links below. You will see below The Power of Visualization in the top 20 [12]. And his book 7 Common Signs of a spiritual awakening is in the top 20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/158442011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_1_5_last
He has been featured in Huffington Post and comparison with Richard Dawkins has been made http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sri-vishwanath/
His books have been featured by three of the worlds biggest digital sites in the world

Pixel of Ink featured his book on 31st December http://www.pixelofink.com/hot-deal-the-power-of-visualization-only-99c/
Ereadernewstoday.com features his book every quarter http://ereadernewstoday.com/great-kindle-books-for-1-22-13/6724641/
Fkbookstips featured his book today http://www.fkbooksandtips.com/

Combined these three sites above reach out to more than million people worldwide. He has got a facebook fan fllowing of more than 70000 fans writes daily http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Secret-of-Bhagavad-Gita/158983960821997

If these all does not make a person an author selling 400000 books, featured in top 100 writing for the best online sites being featured by the best sites then I don't know what else can! --Mad Moron 17:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please review the criteria in WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:AUTHOR and describe how the individual meets this criteria. reddogsix (talk)

~~Keep~~ - Amazon has recently announced that its digital sales through Amazon kindle has surpassed physical books. With one million amazon kindles every two weeks there are many new authors who are becoming successful in the digital age. Sri Vishwanath seems to fit into the new successful authors of digital age and has the right credentials--Vighu10081 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please review the criteria in WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:AUTHOR and describe how the individual meets this criteria. reddogsix (talk)

SPEEDY DELETE - Yet another article created by a suspected WP:PAID/WP:PROMO crew. I can confirm it was definitely created by a sockpuppet. NOT NOTABLE. PeterWesco (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Reddog and Peter Wesco I might be new but that does not take away the essence of what I am writing because the author does meet all the criteria listed in your conditions. Please read it out of love and don’t just brush it away. Every new author who has made it big internationally with sales figures and book rankings needs to get a start. So please go through the links. It is a reqest reddog and peter. appreciate your time

He meets four of the criteria required for author inclusion as per your guidelines

   The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

Sri Vishwanath has been endorsed by Mark Victor Hansen. Mark Victor Hansen has written the foreword to his first book. Jack canfield has given him testimonial.

If a person who is ranked in the top 100 most popular authors by Amazon is not an important figure than who is. Amazon themselves says most popular authors and he has been not for one day but for a whole year and more please check links

Yesterday he was 91 today hei s no 72. I don’t understand in todays digital world if an author is popular in amazon that ends the case for his popularity

http://www.amazon.com/author-rank/Religion-Spirituality/digital-text/158280011/ref=ntt_at_kar_B005HA6G0G#8

   The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.

Huffington Post run by Arriana Huffington takes only experts. Sri Vishwanath is an expert in Vedanta a Indian philosophy and huffington post is in the top 100 sites in the world

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sri-vishwanath/

   The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Sri has written eleven books and his book “The Secret of Bhagavad Gita and “The Power of Vedas” are considered path breakers in the field of Vedanta and you can see that he is many times listed on side with peers like Eknath Easwaran. You will see that his two books including 7 common signs of a spiritual awakening have consistenly featurd in the top 20 in Hinduism

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/158442011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_1_5_last

   The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Amazon like wikepedia is an open platform where independent periodical reviews take place. He has got hundreds and thousands of reviews in Amazon which you can see.

Also you should know that today the top 3 sites in digital books have featured him. That itself endorses Sri. You should take note that the sites listed below have more than 5 million readers

Pixel of Ink featured his book on 31st December http://www.pixelofink.com/hot-deal-the-power-of-visualization-only-99c/

· Ereadernewstoday.com features his book every quarter http://ereadernewstoday.com/great-kindle-books-for-1-22-13/6724641/

· Fkbookstips featured his book today http://www.fkbooksandtips.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This author isn't notable. I'll break it down as to why none of the sources or arguments here will keep the article: (expand this for more info)

Rationales

Amazon is not usable as a reliable source in any context and sales on Amazon have no weight here on Wikipedia. It's been proven that sales can be manipulated or misrepresented in any source, but especially Amazon and especially when you start dissecting it down to a specific genre. It's not as easy as waving a hand and you get into the top 100, but it's pretty common for someone to offer a free book and get into the top 100 and then claim that they are notable because they have sold a lot of books.
Sales or circulation do not equal out to notability here on Wikipedia. They just make it more likely that something will get coverage, which this author hasn't. There's also a real issue of verifiability when it comes to sales. How do we know that he's actually had almost a half a million downloads in the last year? That's not exactly a small number and that number is far more than some of the NYT bestselling authors do in a year. Since you're saying that he's had that many downloads, it's a bit fishy that he'd have that many downloads and have received no coverage.
When it comes to the specific categories of Amazon, that's not really that difficult to achieve a higher rank. The smaller and more specific you go, the fewer books you really have to actively compete with. I don't want to say that nobody cares about how well you sell in specific categories in Amazon, but well... nobody cares about how someone sells in specific categories other than the authors themselves. Mainstream media doesn't really care in the slightest. It's when the sales get so big that they start becoming the number one seller on Amazon that people in the media start actively thinking about covering the book and its author.
The Huffington Post is not usable as a reliable source because it's ultimately a blog that anyone can sign up and edit. The link that has been provided is a bio written by Vishwanath himself. That makes it a primary source and primary sources cannot show notability. If it was the owner of the HuffPo herself writing on him, then that might be usable.
None of the download sites mentioned are really considered to be notable or a reliable source. They're ultimately places authors use to advertise their books and sales are made through these pages, so they would never be usable because they're ultimately merchant sites.
The size of a fanbase doesn't really matter, at least not until it reaches mammoth proportions. The only time a fanbase can give notability is if it's reached cult status... which means that the fandom would have received coverage in reliable sources. This is not the case in this instance.
As far as forewords go, those don't count because they're published in the book and are considered primary sources. (WP:PRIMARY) Now when it comes to claims of Jack Canfield giving a testimonial, you'd have to first prove that he actually did give a testimonial and you'd have to prove that it's more than just a book blurb. By that I mean that it's an actual review of Vishwanath and his work and not just a few sentences that you'd find on the cover of a book. These blurbs are so commonplace in the book world that they've long since stopped being anything that would really give notability here on Wikipedia, if they ever did.

Ultimately this all boils down to coverage in reliable sources, which Vishwanath nor his works have received. None of the arguments so far really work as far as WP:AUTHOR go and he would have to pass notability guidelines in order to merit an article. You can argue that he's popular, has had an exorbitant amount of downloads, and has gained coverage in non-reliable sources, but none of those count towards notability regardless of how many people come in and try to argue those points. We don't keep articles based upon unreliable sources or popularity, nor do we keep them because it'd be nice to keep it or because someone might become notable one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Most of what you are saying are baseless because you have no clue of how publishing industry is moving towards

Please read.. U are not reading the arguments i have put forth. LEt me answer all your arguments. i have been in publishing for mroe than two decades

1) Amazon is not usable as a reliable source in any context and sales on Amazon have no weight here on Wikipedia. It's been proven that sales can be manipulated or misrepresented in any source,

Amazon's last year sales were $30 billion and you are saying it is not a reliable source. You must be in a cave to make such a statement. One million kindles are sold every two weeks. Regarding manipulation you can manipulate something for a day or two not for long. Sri has been in the top 100 in most popular authors for more than 18 months. Please wake up and go through the link. Yesterday he was 72 today he is 45. It is a shame that one is not conversant with the happenings of the industry and the changes and has view points which are absolutely baeless. take a look at the link below. he is no 45. Please read.

http://www.amazon.com/author-rank/Religion-Spirituality/digital-text/158280011/ref=ntt_at_kar_B005HA6G0G#5

2) How do we know that he's actually had almost a half a million downloads in the last year? That's not exactly a small number and that number is far more than some of the NYT bestselling authors do in a year. Since you're saying that he's had that many downloads, it's a bit fishy that he'd have that many downloads and have received no coverage.

You perhaps answered your own question which is precisely what i am saying. U are not in tab with the current industry. Please dont be so rude on someone because you have no idea of the industry. Traditionally coverage is done only for paperback sales through NYT new authors are killing it in amazon kindle. There are hundreds of authors who have sold over a million copies. please do some research. Think about it. Amazon has had over a billion kindle sales so far, and if a person is listed in the to 100 for a year do some maths and you will know 400k download is a small figure. Do one more thing every day monitor whether the author is in top 100 or not do it for a year and you will find 365 days out of 365 he is in top 100. check the link do some research please dont think the old way things have changed

http://www.amazon.com/author-rank/Religion-Spirituality/digital-text/158280011/ref=ntt_at_kar_B005HA6G0G#5

3) when it comes to the specific categories of Amazon, that's not really that difficult to achieve a higher rank. The smaller and more specific you go, the fewer books you really have to actively compete with.

That is why i say you dont read. The category he is competing is the strongst. it is stress management have a look . there is dale carneigie, spencor johnson . u must be kidding to say all this please wake up dude and get this thing rolling

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/156574011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_3_5_last

4) None of the download sites mentioned are really considered to be notable or a reliable source. They're ultimately places authors use to advertise their books and sales are made through these pages, so they would never be usable because they're ultimately merchant sites

It is readers that make for authors credibility and not coverage. Coverage can by bought but readers cannot be.The three download sites Pixel of Ink, Ereadernewstoday, and Fkbooks and tips are the largest in digital sales. Do some research these three sites provide 30% trafic to USA. That should be clear and they dont accept paid ads my dear. Try to list one book of yours in a year you will fail. They go only by merit. U can submit as many times none of yours will be featured. It is not that you pay them. You are sitting in a cave. www.pixelofink.com is ranked no 7440 in Alexa,ereadernewstoday.com is 6993

What more do you want. You want Jack canfield, Mark Victor Hansen to write to wikepedia and tell you come on tell what you want but please understand that press coverage is not waht makes an author today that age is gone... It is readership and readership alone and digital sales rules. Please wake up and i hope any senior admin looks at this whole thing and sets it to rest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually fairly aware of many of the trends of the publishing world and of how Amazon works, and I'd really like to remind you of WP:CIVIL when trying to address the statements I've made. Comments such as "you must have been living in a cave" aren't really all that nice. I'm fully aware that Amazon is a large business and has made millions of dollars, but the key word there is business. Amazon is not usable as a reliable source. Ever. As far as sales on Amazon go, those still don't matter when it comes to notability. It's not just Amazon- sales from any retailer will not count towards notability. There are many, many authors that make the NYT bestseller list in various formats (print, ebook) but still do not pass notability guidelines. Popularity in sales do not count towards notability. It just makes it more likely that they will gain coverage. As far as knowing sales numbers, I'm saying that because it's easy to claim something but it's harder to prove it. You can say that it's likely that someone will get close to a half a million downloads, but that's something that's difficult to prove in reliable sources. You can say that he's been downloaded five billion times, but until you have proof in a secondary, reliable source that claim is just a claim. Even then it'd have to go in-depth, as sales numbers are considered to be a WP:TRIVIAL source. As for the other websites, those still aren't considered reliable sources regardless of how high they are or aren't in Alexa ratings. Popularity does not mean that a source is reliable and believe me, these are not reliable sources. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the end result is that your arguments still have to fall within WP:AUTHOR and they aren't. You could ask Canfield and Hansen to write articles on their own websites about the author, giving reviews of his work. That would help, but I sort of doubt that this would be enough. It'd still be pretty much just two sources and we'd need more than that to show a depth of coverage. I'm not saying that Vishwanath isn't an author. Nobody is questioning that. What we're questioning is whether he's a notable author per Wikipedia's guidelines and he fails notability guidelines. You could present the Amazon website as an argument over and over again and it would still fail to show notability. People have presented this argument in AfD many, many times before and in a more succinct and polite manner. It didn't work then and it won't work now. No admin worth their salt would close this as a keep with those sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, please do not put "keep" twice. You've already put "keep" once and while you can continue to debate, you shouldn't keep putting "keep" in the header of your comments. I would, however, like to ask that unless you have further sourcing other than the ones you've posted or arguments that fall within WP:AUTHOR, that we move any further debating to either a user talk page (you can use mine, if you like) or to the talk page of the article itself. I don't want to bog down the AfD with paragraphs and paragraphs of text that just repeat the same thing over and over again. 07:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep The word notable is based on quality of content and commercial/social applicability. This discussion will become only personal with more arguments. Author is an author and if you dont give weightage to Amazon when it says "Most popular authors" it is not right. "Most popular means " those who are read who are worthy of reading. I would suggest someone senior looks at it as there is no reason not to mention this author. Every proof suggests he has a case and you are just defending your own claims. Any person who has written one book will blindly understand what an author means. Anyone who has 100 readers will understand what an author means. You can take this claim to any of the top 100 authors and ask them if this guy meets the criteria of notable authors and all of them will agree. You are denying the results and proof and basing your arguments simply on your power to comment. that will not go anywhere. We need an aribitator to solve this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And one mor thing i am sorry when i said " living in a cave" if that hurt you a thousand apologies. did not mean that. i love you as a human being we are humans first and then what we are. so very sorry for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain, if you want to comment further, use the word "comment" in bold. Multiple keep votes will be struck. As far as "most popular" goes, if you want to lobby Wikipedia to have popularity and sales rankings count towards notability here on Wikipedia, you're more than welcome to do so. Until that is changed, we have to go by the current standards of notability here on Wikipedia, which the author fails. Again, nobody is questioning whether or not he's an author. We're questioning whether or not he's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, not any personal criteria on your or my end. I will open up a 3rd party page to mediate, but I very seriously doubt that they will agree that Amazon sales count towards notability here on Wikipedia, given that it's been discarded as an argument for notability here on Wikipedia multiple times. I do accept your apology, but please try to be more polite when commenting. I know it must be frustrating when you try to argue a point and get told that it doesn't count towards notability, but the fact is that Amazon sales and sales in general mean little to nothing here on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks what sort of proof do you want in addition. if you are the admin i can provide graph screenshots from sri's account that will set everything to rest about numbers. cannot provide that here because it is confidential but can certainly provide it via email. what other source do you need because i think you please research this three sites pixel of ink, ereadernewstoday they are more big than any coverage and consists of all American readers. Their endorsment are far superior than even New york times please understand please go through those two sites talk to them email them. He does figure in wikepedia's "notable author" we have to jsut approach it from a fresh pair of eyes. It is not one book the author has written thirteen books, and we need a publishing expert and a wikepedia authority to close this issue it is very sad if this guy does not make it. it will not do anything to him or me personally but it would be a sad case of wikepedia denying the right people the platform it has meant to provide and that would be very very very bad.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in notable sources. Once he receives such coverage, the article may be suitable for inclusion, but not until then. Sales figures are not coverage, and, in any event, confidential "graph screenshots" are not permitted as sources on WP, unless and until they are publicly published and commented on by reliable third party sources. I'll also note that if someone has access to such confidential material, it could be argued that they have a conflict of interest, and it would be important to avoid giving that impression. Anaxial (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anaxial. Not only does the person seem to be non-notable, but there is a lot of information that needs citations. Also, the article is written in an overly exaggerated tone. smtchahal^(talk) 09:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongcomment' There is no publishing house or author who can reveal sales figure publicly. so it always confidential. only— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then, I am afraid, they cannot be used as sources or evidence on WP. I am not saying that they are incorrect, or that they should be published, only that they can't be used. Anaxial (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rankings are common. Sales figures are always stated but proof is never given proof is always confidential. And i think the fact that an author becomes non-notable because he is notfeatured in top media does not fit into the Wikepedia vision because a author any day any time becomes notable when he has got outsstanding content, is an expert on the subject and has got a huge readership. I dont know what else makes a author notable. So please dont try to kill this whole thing based on ego issues. The author is notable and you cannot consider him non-notable under any means except through judgemental thinking. I would like experts in publishing industry to view this and comment not admins and editors because they dont seem to get the point and keep saying it is not notable as per wikipedia guideliness. That is not right. Guidelines is always subtle and needs experts on the subject. There is no reason on earth the author be denied the wikepedia platform based on the reasons stated above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the issue that WP is an encyclopedia not a "platform", the argument that "admins and editors" should not comment on an AfD (or should be given little weight if they do) and that WP guidelines should not be used as the basis for discussion is an interesting one, but I fear it may fundamentally misunderstand the nature of WP. Sorry. Anaxial (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Publishers Weekly will report yearly on sales figures for various different formats, which includes e-books. ([13]) In many cases they'll reveal exact numbers, although it's far more common for them to list the exact numbers of the physical books sold. ([14]) Others report on this as well, but PW is usually one of the most well known sources for book sale numbers. Now as far as book sales numbers go, this article is a good example as to why sales numbers are not seen as a very reliable source of notability here on Wikipedia. Even if someone says that they have achieved them through no outside element such as a marketing company or by buoying their sales via free giveaways, there is always a large enough amount of doubt as far as this goes. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people who scammed their way onto the top of the bestselling lists, but this is pretty much why we can't use sales numbers as a sign of notability here on Wikipedia. And as far as experts in the publishing and literary worlds go, you're assuming that every person who contributes is completely unaware of the publishing world. I'm no Tim Spalding or Michiko Kakutani, but I'm confident enough in the publishing world to say that I'd probably know a little more than most. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent coverage. That's undeniable and there's no reason for the discussion to move beyond that. What does call for scrutiny is the outrageous behavior of those pushing for the article to be kept; for such an obvious issues of WP:ADVERT and WP:FANPAGE, one would almost feel pressed to call for meatpuppet investigations after this article is inevitably deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no meat or socking here- it's all one editor, so no need for an investigation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our rules for books and authors are necessarily somewhat oriented towards the common forms of formal publication in European-based societies, but we try to adopt them to other cultures also.--although we have great difficulty in some cases in finding material. The present article, however, is not traditional Indian material,for which I would extend great flexibility, but rather self help material published by an indian author, but aimed at the ordinary American market, and distributed in the common way for self-published material on the web, We have not normally considered downloads or amazon sales as representative of best seller status in any true sense, or as evidence of notability, unless they have been recognized as such by the usual reliable sources not connected with the author or his distributor. Tokyogirl well explains some of the technical reasons why we have difficulty using this sort of data. The sort of RS information that we would need is totally lacking here. DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this is not a discussion panel this is more of opinions which are hard wired. I have a simple question for all of you guys get into the top 100 most popular authors and stay there for a year in amazon. I find this an absolute waste discussing here because you write as if you know so much but you have no clue of how the digital sales in books work. All you guys know is delete. I wonder if any of you even know what it takes toget to the top 100 most popular authors, this is not an ordinary ranking by amazon. Anyone who is in the list for more than a year would have sold over 500k. I think you guys will be moer happy if this is deleted much like the crufixiation of christ. Good guys being beaten to death. Most of what you are citing will not be accepted if you cease to be an admin or editor you claim power because you are operating inside that perhiphery if you come out of it for a second all what you have written will not hold good. I dont think this is good for wikepedia because none of you are taking any pains in asking authors who haev sold more than a million books in kindle or apple about this issue. I wish all of you good luck and i think it is good for the author to stay away from wikepedia. Wish you all good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vighu10081 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - "Though this is my first post, I wanted to comment a bit on this discussion. I have been an author for over 40 years with bestsellers to my credit and books in various languages (Spanish, French, Italian, Turkish, Romanian, English, Korean and others) so I know a bit about authors and books. I have met Sri Vishwanath twice in the past decade and found him to be one who desires to help humanity through his writings, lectures and teachings. I have read a number of his books and recommended them to many others. Although there are pros and cons in any argument or discussion, I still believe, as the late Dr. Thomas Dooley once said, 'It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.' Let Sri Vishwanath continue to share his message with those who may need the help. We all are free to read or not read his works, to believe or not believe his messages. --Johnharri (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[[User:johnharri|[reply]

Comment - ...and how does this meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion? reddogsix (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SOCKPUPPETS Closing admin please note that the article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned spammer and the SPA accounts that are now voting have also been included in those investigations and are awaiting a checkuser. PeterWesco (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked a sock or two here, but can't get a CU or make a determination for some of the newer editors, due to a lack of edits, so I shouldn't !vote here even as I've looked at the material. I still can't help but to notice how DGG's has summed it up quite neatly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any of the criteria listed under WP:AUTHOR and while I admit that being ranked #38 in 99¢ Kindle downloads in a subcategory on Amazon is more than I've accomplished in my own life, it still is an accomplishment that has not resulted in the subject of this article enjoying "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:N. DanielPenfield (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball/Speedy Delete under WP:EVADE. Should be logically applied to all articles created by this user. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion, Mr. Gertler. The efforts of this user and what did, in fact, turn out to be some socks are also as strong an argument against keeping as what the rest of us have said here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samandar Paar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORGSIG. I am unable to find any sources discussing this newspaper indepth. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A google search returned no other website other than the official website. Clearly non-notable Strike Σagle 15:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources provided. Everything I can find with a Google search is completely irrelevant to the topic. "Worldwide weekly", hence, seems a far-fetched claim. smtchahal^(talk) 15:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree. It's not notable. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD should be listed by country-related discussions of Pakistan and UAE at a minimum, the deletion request link on the article is not working and there may be transliteration problems that limit the hits in searches.Crtew (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like an issue of WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be a duplicate of Ash-Sharq, even down to having the same web site, with the single difference of one being a daily publication and the other a weekly, so the two articles should be considered together. It would help enormously to have their names in Arabic script so that we have a chance of finding coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now also at AFD[15] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ash-sharq in Arabic script is (الشرق). I would guess it looks the same in Urdu. Samandar Paar is not an Arabic word and it has the letter "P" in it, so I'm not sure how it would look in actual Urdu script. It can't be written in Arabic. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samundr Par is written like this (سمندر پار) in Urdu. Ash-Sharq is the same in both Urdu and Arabic.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 10:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article failes WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Simple as that. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Reece[edit]

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

fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. All noms are scene-related. No revelant nonpromotional GNews or GBooks hits. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed by an editor who apparently believes that scene-related award nominations count towards PORNBIO #1, even though its text says exactly the opposite. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. czar · · 15:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Numerous hits for blogs, social media, and commercial sites, but a pretty clear GNG failure — as is the case for virtually all porn biographies, truth be told. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Kay[edit]

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

fails PORNBIO, all noms scene-related, no reliably sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. czar · · 15:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG, nor does this meet the dubious lowbar special notability guideline for Porn Bio. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG without significant reliable source coverage. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Steal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails PORNBIO and the GNG. All AVN noms are scene-related and therefore, per PORNBIO, do not contribute to notability, NightMoves award is not notable and by well-established consensus does not contribute to notability. All other content is either unsourced or promotionally sourced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. czar · · 15:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another in a seemingly endless series of vapid and undersourced biographies of porn actors. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. She gets more GNews hits than the average porn star, but only significant coverage appears to come from Adult Video News. Even that coverage is focused on contract signings. Fails PORNBIO. The Nightmoves award is minor. Even with the "Best Tease Performance" AVN nom counted as individual, that single nomination is not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:PORNBIO's clause on scene related award nominations --w^L^{<speak·check>} 09:02, 6 May 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. Courcelles 00:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dehorokkhi[edit]

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

the description is too much poor, no plot has been included, references and links are either too weak or not enough to give proper information Md31sabbir (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 28. Snotbot t • c » 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:GNG, references added here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and close per improvements made by User:Zayeem. Thank you. To the nominator, when we have tags that may be used to bring attention to content issues of improvable articles, we do not use AFD to force cleanup. As an aside, I am worried about this nominator's attention toward improvable Bangladesh-related topics. Stub articles are fine. Content issues make a poor deletion rationale. Notability need not be world-wide. Notable even if only to Bangldesh through Bangladeshi sources is perfectly fine. Even if a sources are non-English, that does not mean they are unsuitable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Dark[edit]

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

fails PORNBIO, all noms scene-related, zero sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. czar · · 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 May 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 deleted by Tonywalton (CSD A7, G3). (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 00:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Harmer[edit]

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

Prod removed with no improvement. No evidence of notability. Single link doesn't mention him. Fails WP:BIO Tassedethe (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete A7. Btw, is he the guy on the left or the one on the right?
Speedy delete A7 and G3 (hoax). No information anywhere online about him except for social media. Definitely not one of Cleo's Top 50 bachelors, or "one of the most recognizable figures on the Central Coast". Dea db eef 22:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NtShutdownSystem[edit]

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

API function are not of themselves notable, and this article does not assert the API function is anyway exceptional. Was a PROD but the article creators challanged. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the same reason provided by the nominator. smtchahal^(talk) 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This function is part of the Native API for Microsoft WIndows. The API as a whole is notable, but the individual functions in the API usually are not. I haven't found anything beyond routine mentions in API references and snippets in tutorials. While there are numerous reliable sources out there, none are in-depth about the topic itself. The topic thus fails WP:GNG. If there are multiple in-depths sources I've missed, I'd be happy to change my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nearly brought this here, but got sidetracked. I think the nom and Mark viking have said it all. Peridon (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 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. Courcelles 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frayed knights[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Frayed knights" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Seems to fail WP:NOTE as its an indie game with no other distinctions. A google for it turns up one notable review that I could find and the typical entries into game databases, which hardly establishes notability. TKK ^{bark !} 12:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 14:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A google for it reveals previews and reviews on numerous games sites. Rrreese (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - could you provide links to these? -- Whpq (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as passing GNG with multiple reliable WP:VG/RS sources [16][17][18]. Not a whole lot, but above the bar. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:37, 7 May 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. Whereas all agree that BLP#1 (One event) is relevant for the evaluation, there is no consensus whether this policy applies to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaullah Haq[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Comment: This banner should be nominated for deletion. What purpose does it serve? It could placed on every AfD or none. And what possible difference does it make? Crtew (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is so the IPs or Spas who turn up know that unless they make a vote grounded in policy it will not make a bit of difference to the outcome. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides which article gets the banner and which doesn't? A banner like this isn't going to stop anybody, and the editors who close these discussions know the policies anyway. It's useless.Crtew (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crtew you know that I respect your opinion. But, Sir, this is not right time or venue to discuss the demerits of this template. It frankly seems a diversion from the real topic. If you really want to delete the template then nominate it for deletion or start a discussion on the talk of {{notavote}} as opposed to cluttering things up here. Thank you, Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article no doubt constitutes a current event, and it's notable, as per the article of Sarabjit Singh is also an Indian prisoner, that article should also be nominated for deletion. Sanaullah Haq has reliable sources, and is under fast development and expansion, and should be kept. Secondly the reasoning for deletion is not appropriate. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is not Sarabjit Singh "notable only for one event"? Faizan -Let's talk! 13:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference between a guy charged, convicted and given the death sentence for alleged terrorist actions. Also the fact that he was given a Presidential pardon, which was then revoked and a guy who got shived in prison. Also read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Darkness Shines (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how is the reasoning for deletion not appropriate? WP:BLP1E is quite an appropriate reason. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, remember the AfD of Islamic Green when Faizan promised the article would be expanded which never happened? Strike Σagle 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then is not this important that as a revenge to the death of Sarabjhit, Sanaullah was attacked(and possibly killed)? Sanaullah was mage victim of the Indian avenge, and it make the aticle notable. And the matter was different at Islamic Green, Now the under discussion article of Sanaullah Haq is notable, already expanded(not a stub). Faizan -Let's talk! 13:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re DS, the presidential pardon was given to Surjeet Singh, not Sarabjit Singh. You seem to be confusing the two. Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't digress from the current discussion by using a red herring. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fact, and was never meant for "red herring". Faizan -Let's talk! 15:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion on the Afd Sanaullah Haq. If you feel some other article is unmerited, you could request an Afd for it separately. However, in the current discussion, please do not imply that an article on Sanaullah is justified just because another article exists on Wikipedia inspite of being notable for a single event!. Let us discuss this article on its merits with regard to Wikipedia's policies. I have repeatedly pointed out that the present biography is not justified per Wikipedia's current policies.- Ralfan (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hey! Wait! I have been reminding that this is not now intended to be a biography, but an event.—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one incident doesn't make someone so notable for an article...the creator seems to have made the article solely based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Strike Σagle 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above regarding this. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be changing my vote anyway... Strike Σagle 13:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who has asked you for it. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any person with a little bit of commonsense would have understood the intent of your above comment..I am unaware about you though... Strike Σagle 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking you to read my reply to your "oppose". Faizan -Let's talk! 14:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my first reply was intended for the same...you couldn't get it... Strike Σagle 14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Number 5 7 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As of now it's a clear case of WP:BLP1E. An article about the subject can be recreated if he becomes notable in due course of time. Salih (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the lead sentence from [19], "SRINAGAR: Pakistan sought of Friday immediate transfer of the prisoner who had suffered serious head injuries after being attacked in an Indian jail in apparent tit-for-tat violence following the death of an Indian inmate Sarabjit Singh in Pakistan." Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Merge to Sarabjit Singh~~. The attack on the topic is an event which is wp:prominent in the context of a notable individual. This event is already covered in the lede of Sarabjit Singh, and a new section there would fit well to support the lede. Note that the lead sentence of the news article from Srinagar does not mention the topic by name, which indicates that at this point the world at large has little or no interest in a biography of this individual. As per various policies, deletion is not the solution for non-notable topics that are already covered in the encyclopedia, and that include WP:RS. Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep due to changing notability of topic and agree with rename as per Robofish. The event also needs to be covered at Sarabjit Singh. Unscintillating (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lead of Sarabjit Singh does not contain enough info about Sanaullah, and the text in the lower sections was removed here, so it's necessary to Keep the article, It returns more than 0.2 million results from Google, and thus notability is evident. Please review! Faizan -Let's talk! 08:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article at the time of my comment. The lede says, "On 3 May, in what was thought to be a tit-for-tat assault, a Pakistani prisoner in a jail in Jammu, India, was attacked by Indian inmates, suffering serious head injuries, and was reported to be in critical condition." Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have examined the diff which you cite. It is a bad edit, one that removed a citation on a topic nominated for deletion by the same editor. A bot found the edit and restored the citation. It is also a bad edit IMO because it removed information on a topic nominated for deletion by the same editor. We need better from AfD nominators. Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the section removed in the diff cited was "Attack on Pakistani prisoner in Jammu". I agree with this name, it makes it clear that the section is an event and not a biography. Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS are not how we define wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it falls within WP:BIO1E, WP:LOCALFAME, WP:IINFO and WP:INTHENEWS or else Merge with Sarabjit Singh. The individual was absolutely unknown before he was attacked. Moreover, a single incident does not make him notable. Anyway, he is already discussed in the article Sarabjit Singh, who was notable even before he was murdered. A google search on [Singh] lists 94.2 million results, and for [Haq] lists 0.2 million results. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then are not 0.2 million results enough for the notability of Sanaullah Haq? Faizan -Let's talk! 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two results were mentioned to give a comparison. Quoting from WP:GHITS: WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics. It may also be noted that using Google News, the following results are obtained: Sarabjit Singh = [132,000]; Sanaullah Haq = [4020] results. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also using them for comparison, and keep it on note that they were cited by you first. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments below. I stand by my vote. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sarabjit SinghThis incident definitely needs inclusion in the main article on Sarabjit but a separate article seems overkill.Breezeplushy (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sarabjit Singh if current sources indicate that "apparent tit-for-tat" can be substantiated. I'd like to at least see the cause for suspicion expounded upon. Heavily polarized Pakistan/India relations cause me to view early conclusions with skepticism. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose Merging to Sarabjit Singh. Much of the details in this article is not appropriate in a biography about another person. In general, merging biographies is seldom a good idea. Regards,~~ Iselilja (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to extended comment further down. Iselilja (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article of Sanaullah is itself notable, it returned 0.2 million results from Google, despite comparison with Sarabjit Singh, isn't the article notable? Secondly it gave rise to many conflicts in Pakistan, Azad Kashmir, and a drawback for India-Pakistan relations. So just asking you people for a review. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The incident occured in the backdrop of the Sarabjit Singh incident and drew mass attention in the media, especially with regard to India-Pakistan relations post-Sarabjit's death. There is extensive coverage on the subject which makes it satisfy WP:GNG. Moreover, the affair has been politically charged and has reached the level where diplomats have been concerned with it. This is no doubt a notable article that needs to be kept. Mar4d (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was viewed 345 times on the very first day of its creation. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has the number of views got anything to do with whether it does not deserve this discussion? Ralfan (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid justification for an article, and that would probably be the only real justification here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the article itself is relevant and notable. It is a popular topic on Google and Wikipedia, with 0.2 million views on Google. Secondly info about Sanaullah Haq was removed from Sarabjit Singh, so the article is justified. Please! Review your comment! Faizan -Let's talk! 10:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how and why WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here or is relevant. They are two linked, but separate incidents that have recieve d extensive coverage and deserve articles based on WP:GNG. We look at what media coverage tells us about the subject, not individual Wikipedians' perceptions. Mar4d (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at media coverage, and it isn't extensive enough to warrant an independent article. Aside from other stuff existing, there isn't a valid reason to keep this article. If some editors want to keep repeating "the coverage is extensive, the coverage is extensive" when it clearly isn't then they're free to do so but my comment requires no reveiw. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we say "the coverage is extensive, the coverage is extensive" we say it with Reference, You should also have a reference, otherwise it would become a case like "I don't like this article". Faizan -Let's talk! 11:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link lead me directly to Google's main page. Not that I didn't look at what you posted above. You have proof of being mentioned in the media. not of significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do get the impression that this story has significant coverage and also has implications for the India/Pakistan relationship. In addition to national news, BBC now covers the story under the headline: Sanaullah Ranjay: Pakistan's top diplomat visits India hospital. AP/New York Times has also covered the story, saying in one piece "The assault on Mr. Ranjay is yet another blow to the tense diplomatic relations between India and neighboring Pakistan." A protest march in Kashmir has been reported in news. ~~My suggestion would be to Keep and Rename to "Attack on Sanullah Ranjay" or something like that, making it into an event article rather than a biography.~~ I oppose Merging to Sarabjit Singh. Much of the details in this article is not appropriate in a biography about another person. In general, merging biographies is seldom a good idea. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Update: I choose to stay neutral on whether the coverage is extensive enough to warrant an article. But if the article is kept it should be renamed and made into an article about an event. - And with this, I am out of here. Iselilja (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thanks! So The article should be kept and renamed to "Sanaullah Ranjey", There is already a redirect too for Sanaullah Haq at Sanaullah Ranjay. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article in my view should be renamed to the the "Attack on Sanaullah Ranjey" or something else that covers the attack and reactions to it, but it should not be a biography on Sanaullah because he appears to only be notable as a crime victim and people solely known as crime victims should seldom have an ordinary biography. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Agreed! Make your stance in "bold text"! Faizan -Let's talk! 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I agree to this, too. The article should be kept and the solution could be renaming the article intead of wiping it out of existence or merging with Sarabjeet. It is not a biography of Sanaullah, so the suggestion given by Iselilja is quite plausible. The event IS quite notable, too. As more facts are revealed, this article has great chances of being expanded into a useful article. I opine and therefore request that this article be kept. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 13:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Also comparing this man with Sarabjit Singh is completely wrong, as a number of incidents involving Singh had been a major news in Indian media (don't know about Pakistani media, but they have been also covering him to at least a decent limit). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is comparing them. Both of them are itself notable. Even the article of Snaullah returns 0.2 million search results, with hundreds of views at Wikipedia too, and the article should be kept. See the above comments too for more info. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is only what I have to say. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E, and the clearest case of it I have ever seen. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLPIE issue can be avoided by simply renaming the article to the "Attack on Saunullah" or similar, and thus making it into an article about an event and not a biography. It would be similar to the Killing of Trayvon Martin and numerous other murder cases. And this case in question probably have more political/societal impact than many murder/criminal cases on Wikipedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think we should have an article on a guy who got shived in prison? Nope, delete or redirect. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.... Agreed with Iselilja... I think the same! Faizan -Let's talk! 13:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing could be said about Trayvon Martin. Just another teenager being shot as a suspected criminal. But in both cases, the criminal act came to symbolize something other and more. There have been protests over this in Kashmir. And there are substansial coverage in reliable sources, in India/Pakistan, and also mentions in AFP, New York Times and BBC, which indicates that these leading news organizations have found the incident and the reaction to it notable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is perfectly O.K. Just needs a rename. The event is quite notable, as I have already said. That is it. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there who is considering this the best case of BLP1E! This rule does not apply here, as Sanaullah is almost dead now. Another point, that this is not a biography, but is more about an incident. Your biggest pillar which supported you is now invalid. Hope this is clear.—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys. Articles about deaths of people are create only when the death attracted extreme media coverage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This story is just part of an unending list of murders of Indian / Pakistani prisoners in the others' jail, which again is a subset of Atrocities on Indian and Pakistani prisoners in the others jail (pls see [| 1], [| 2|], [| 3], [| 4], [| 5] etc.). The prisoners go by different names. e.g. Check out [Chamel Singh] with 0.2 million results. Would you deem this as notable? Moreover, notability cannot be measured merely by using google search results. ["punk music" + china] has 0.55 million results. Do you think it is notable? Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then do not measure it with the number of google results... Just see that it did gain media attention for quite sometime. This does make it noteable. It was not the incident which you would listen from one ear and then discard it from the other. I do think it is noteable enough to have an article of its own. Regards.—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, Wikipedia has policies and we go by them. Please refer to WP:VICTIM, which states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size". Opinions need to be based on the policies. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is true and no doubt, we are bound to follow it, but I do not think Sarabjeet is the appropriate article to contain this one. It gives us a biography of Sarabjeet and isn’t apt for containing the event of the death of a different person. That is what I mean when I say not to merge it into Sarabjeet. And as the supposed forerunner of the event is notable, then this ought to have a seperate article, too.—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 18:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, my good friend, please read the remaining part of WP:VICTIM, which states: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.. I hope this claries. Please also read WP:EVENT carefully. Thanks. Ralfan (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He still ought to have an article? Did you even consider what Ralfan quoted from the relevant policy? Honestly, the hysterical, frantic responses of those editors who want to keep this article to any person who supports deletion displayes, if not a COI, a sure lack of objectivity. There's way too much passion involved with this subject for much of this to be taken as a serious, policy-based, editorially-minded view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You totally and completely misunderstood me. It is not passion which is driving me. No doubt, Sanaullah himself doesn’t deserve an article of his own (the policy you state gives the rules for creating an article about the person). Now, see the alternative (WP:BIO1E). He can have an article about the event of his death. I will repeat my assertion here that it is notable enough (it has a big role in determining Indo-Pak relations). It is also supposed to be related to the even bigger event of Sarabjeet’s death. It that not significant enough?—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 05:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they are insisting ton the deletion of the article. Even now, many Asian Channels are giving full coverage to Sanaullah HAq, over his failing condition, Isn't it adequate? Syed Wamiq is absolutely right, The matter of Sanaullah Haq will give rise to many conflicts now, even now, the Pakistani and Indian forces have clashed at Kashmir, see references here and here. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of these two sources report anything about Sanaullah or his condition. Per WP:YESPOV, please avoid stating opinions as facts. Please also read WP:BALL. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses ... Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate Thanks. 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No one other than Pak Army/ISI chief can tell if Haq's death will give birth to military tensions. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More grasping at straws here while blatantly ignoring site policy. The argument that his death deserves a separate article because it's all over Asian channels right now violates WP:NOTNEWS. On almost every point, those of us who support deletion have shown again and again why this article shouldn't exist and those who want to keep it just search for another justification. It's a pretty clear case of people who have already made up their minds (read: already stopped being objective) and are just looking for anything to throw out there in order to keep this article alive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in accordance with WP:INDEPTH, has received signifant coverage from the media all over. It should be kept, if not, then atleast as an event.]

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hey! Come on, tell me which of my statements were *not objective*? You said we are catching at a straw, but you are catching at every policy you find which may attack us and we are just telling you that the article is already immune to that new poison you’ve got. That is just because of your friend who lives with you in the darkness, where you hunt for new poisons, who lets us know (it shines, doesn’t it?) your wicked plans and we give the required immunity to our patient beforehand (Just kidding, do not mind, the Darkness which shines!). Now as to the dispute, I would like to say that if you think media coverage is not enough for the event to make it notable, leave it. Just think of its forerunner and the possible consequences in the long run. Are they not noteworthy? Don’t they make this event notable, too? Now, come on, you tell me why is this event not notable or is unimportant? (I am asking every opponent user) So that the not notable or not news policies may be applied?—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 13:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can repeat "it's notable, it has extensive coverage" as much as you want; anyone reviewing this will simply need to sift through all the comments and straw-grasping to see that. The aptness of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is very apparent here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the new policy apt here, then?—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 03:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Syed! It seems that we are beating Dead Horses. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely...—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 10:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well guys, this is an well-written article with sufficient references. Additionally, the topic has its importance to people of Indian subcontinent. Guys advocating for deletion appears not to be rooted in good faith. --AsceticRosé 07:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Faizan -Let's talk! 07:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cent percent agreed!!—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 10:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename Death of Sanaullah Haq: This article has been improved since it was first proposed for deletion. The event of his death has WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia titles do have a way to solve some of the controversy above when there is doubt above bio/event and that is to use "death", "murder", "disappearance", etc. "Attack" is not normally used for individuals. I think "Death of ..." is most appropriate. The lead, however, should be tweaked to communicate the point made above about its relevance to India-Pakistan relations (sources above).Crtew (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Oppose Rename, Yeah, it has been improved, and it should be kept, but not renamed. If it's renamed, then "Death" is not the correct option, It should be like "Attack", "Murder" or "Assasination". Faizan -Let's talk! 06:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given his death today has attracted significant international interest and also that Reuters reports that the bombing he committed in the 1990s killed ten people see [20]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This can be kept as a biography too, cent percent agreed. Faizan -Let's talk! 06:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should be deleted because it is based on only one event in the life of the person and hence is neither biographical nor complete. It only tells about how the prisoner was attacked and how he died and the so called political aftermath. It looks like a political commentary than a proper article. This is certainly not a biographical article and it does not discuss anything apart from his death. It seems like a fabricated article being pushed to exist and appears very poor. Rahulchic (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Never heard of this guy before he was attacked in the prison. This is only an event. I don't see much substance in this article to be considered as a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.106.50 (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep and Rename to "Assasination of Sanaullah Haq" Has gathered notable coverage in the International media even he was died today and so the article should be kept. 86.99.140.141 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.99.140.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete NN one-off, nothing useful to be known here. At most, two lines in Sarabjit Singh's article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-part of an international incident. If things calm down, consider moving in Sarabjut Singh's article!V. Joe (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:It is not the case that the event is significant...; Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. Does not fall under BLP1E, LOCALFAME, WP:IINFO, etc etc. Come on, there is just too much coverage of this event (local, national, regional, international). The event was prominent enough to gather wide reactions from 2 governments. It is not 'indiscriminate collection of information'. He is neither living nor low profile (BLP1E). Yes the event probably started due to Sarabjit incident (please note proper investigation has not been concluded) but the murder has had a strong impact on its own (strain relations as now both sides were invovled, travel advisory by Pakistan due to security concerns), therefore not OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The article does require more info that is available e.g reason for arrest, reactions of people and Govt, plea for release by Govt etc. Samar ^Talk 18:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This event happened due to the Sarabjit Murder incident,so considering it , 2 lines can be added in the Sarabjit Murder incident, no need to have a different page for it.& to add to this point, he was not famous earlier nor was he convicted to death & then pardoned later like Sarabjit. If Sanaullah had not died, he would have been like any other imprisoned person.Yohannvt (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he was not famous earlier nor was he convicted to death & then pardoned later like Sarabjit - That is false. Sarabjit was never given any presidential pardon. That was for Surjeet Singh, another Indian detainee. Just for the record. Mar4d (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

& then pardoned later like Sarabjit - Sorry for giving wrong information, got confused between Sarabjit & Surjeet singh, but nonetheless Bollywood actor Salman Khan came out in favour of Sarabjit Singh's release, which makes him a notable person at least in the Indian Media unlike Sanaullah where noone knew about him till he died.Yohannvt (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I am not saying he was famous before, yes the attack and subsequent murder put the incidence in headlines, but the impact of the incidence cannot be ignored just like in Sarabjit case. It involved high level officials from both sides and resulted in increased tensions which was enough to cause travel concerns. If, and there is a big IF, the two articles are to be merged, it should be put under a combined title (Pak-India prisoner incidence...I can't think of anything creative right now). Having said that, I am not in favor of the merge. Samar ^Talk 06:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although these have nothing to do with this AFD, still just for the record, Mar4d, the fact is in June 2012, both Pakistani and International media (including BBC) reported President Asif Ali Zardari signed a document sent by the interior ministry of Pakistan commuting Sarabjit's death sentence to life in prison[21]. The Indian foreign minister even issued a statement of appreciation to Islamabad for the gesture.[22]
There was a huge controversy whether or not Pakistan's security agencies pressured the government to reverse course.[www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18595839] There was also a controversy about his "conversion to Islam". All these were while Sarabjit singh was alive. He was notable even before his death, unlike Sanaullah Haq. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 10:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not see the reasons to be deleted the article while there are reliable sources that support subject's notability.Justice007 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sorry but the manner of his death doesn't make him notable per se. Quis separabit? 23:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if people want to look it up then its worth keeping — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.132.161 (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.241.132.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The decedent's offense is not shown, there is no indication that the offense is notable, the victim is not identified as notable, that there was a media circus around the trial, or hat the decedent had done something notable at any time. Sure, if it becomes a huge case of diplomatic concern, the article becomes relevant -- after it is revived.

Death in prison often comes from a murderous attack by a fellow inmate. No notability -- no article.Pbrower2a (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BLP1E does not apply here anymore, he is not a living person. Samar ^Talk 06:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Case covered by multiple notable sources. passes WP:GNG and CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Death of Sanaullah Haq. It's somewhat difficult to distinguish this case from the Sarabjeet Singh one and assess it in its own right, but the fact that the government of Pakistan commented on the death suggests it is notable. However, it seems it's the event of his death that's notable, rather than the person himself; this is really an article on a news story rather than a biography, so it should be renamed accordingly. Robofish (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Averroist 08:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why??? Strike Σagle 12:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those who are in favour of renaming this to Death of Sanaulla Haq: Wikipedia is not memorial site. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of ... has nothing to do with memorial. It is a way to title articles where the death plays an important part of the article. This topic is not excluded from Wikipedia -- a common mistake that Wikipedians in AfD make.Crtew (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly disagree. The person here has become notable only in one context (i.e. his death/murder) I dare say that the phenomenon of murder of terror-convict in a prison is highly common in Indian Subcontinent. Now, if we were to write articles about every published story about prisoners that died in foreign prison we would perhaps run out of time and space for other more significant articles. It's not polite to say that somebody's death is insignificant but it is sadly the truth; it is not a historically unique event. There are literally hundreds of similar stories. What I mean is his death in itself isn't that much significant, it is only significant in the context of recent escalation of animosity following the brutal murder of Sarabjit Singh.
I mean, who knew about that terrorist Sanaullah before the Sarabjit Case? Nobody, that proves that he is famous for only one event and that is his murder. I like what Ralfan wrote above, "This story is just part of an unending list of murders of Indian / Pakistani prisoners in the others' jail, which again is a subset of Atrocities on Indian and Pakistani prisoners in the others jail". It is a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, cheers Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it is a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mark 9:23 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Subjects notable only for one event and it was not a historically important event nor in any way unique. The reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event (his death in a prison totally common in India). Other than that this person is not notable for anything else. It's creation is a case of other crap exists.
P.S. The issue may be, just maybe, mentioned in Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded a lot now, it should be kept now, WP:1E is not justified here. Faizan -Let's talk! 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We would have never known about this person if Sarabjit Singh was not killed, at the max we can mention about his death on the article of sarabjit .-sarvajna (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E; the subject's sole claim to notability is his death. Miniapolis 13:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, as the article's sole aim is to put some sort of Pakistani victimization against India's Sarabjit's murder in Pakistan, in the internet world and show innocence on part of Pakistan. --59.177.225.144 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Muslim[edit]

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

Notability is not clear even after searching in Google English and Google Bengali! Tito Dutta (contact) 12:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims that this person ever did anything that would even suggest he has notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exploring nature:The Metagenomics Way[edit]

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

PROD tag (reason: Article is an essay with lots of synthesis) was removed by a school IP. Ignatz mice•talk 12:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling unfocussed essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete very close to nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 May 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) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Derivé[edit]

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

This is as much a procedural nomination as anything else, although a check of Google News shows no reliable sources with coverage of this person. The article was tagged for speedy deletion. The tag was removed but not by an admin. Although technically the only editor who cannot remove a tag is the creator, in this instance, it was an editor who has tried to create multiple duplicate articles with different variations on the person's name and the editor who uploaded the picture of the subject. I thought about speedy deletion but, in an abundance of caution, I'll let the community decide. Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Google test for "Phines West" -wikipedia reveals 198 hits total, and "Joseph Derivé" -wikipedia gives 508 hits total; looking at these hits, I see nothing conferring any indication of independent notability. While it's clear this gentleman has worked with some prominent artists, notability is not inherited. From all appearances, Derivé is attempting to make his break-out as an independent musician; it's just too soon for Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as tagger. Ignatz mice•talk 01:36, 29 April 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) 12:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Not independently notable, even if could make it in time.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 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 sole keep argument, while passionately argued, appears to have been refuted.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach bicycle path[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No location by this name exists, there are no citations on the page, it reads like a blog post Rednikki (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not factually accurate. There is no Class I bike path of this name with this length in Long Beach, California.^[1] There are no citations on this page. It reads like a blog entry logging personal experiences rather than a Wikipedia article. The only way to make this page factually accurate would be to change the name and nearly all of the text, in order to convert it into a page about the Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath. It would make more sense to build a page on the actually-existing Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath and delete this one.Rednikki (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on cleaning up the List of Los Angeles bike paths article and sub-articles, which is how I came across this one. Rednikki (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 28. Snotbot t • c » 22:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 23:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's written more like blog & isn't factually accurate. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no sources. I would prefer to delete the whole group of articles on bike paths since I am sure "not a directory" also means "not a road atlas." An article on LA County bike paths would be great. With a link to a primary website giving the kind of practical details given in this article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually working on such an article, but unfortunately LA County's bike paths are overseen by many government agency so there is no one primary website to link to. Until I finish the page, that is.Rednikki (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Long Beach, California; subject has received a passing mention in a non-primary reliable source, however the subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage and thus does not pass WP:GNG. That being said, the subject maybe a local interest as shown by the plethera of non-reliable source information available, so an alternative to outright deletion is following WP:LOCAL and redirecting the article to an appropriate target.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 20:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM isn't a good enough rationale, Tell us why.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:PERNOM are used quite often in AfDs. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...Usually followed by a reason, IMO simply saying PerNom/NN & nothing else doesn't -

reason a warrant for it being deleted →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am in agreement this is a textbook case of WP:LOCAL. Furthermore it appears this path has not received large amounts of widespread coverage in reliable and independent sources making it fall short of GNG. Mkdw ^talk 07:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surprised at all the deletes here. It has received very in-depth coverage easily passing WP:GNG. [23][24]--Oakshade (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The basis for this nomination is almost entirely factually inaccurate. Despite what the nom claims, reliable sources stipulate there is in fact a "Long Beach Bike Path" and sources have written extensively on it. Unfortunately it seems the participants in this AfD took the nom's stipulation at face value and voted accordingly. As sources were provided late in this AfD, this might have to go to DRV.--Oakshade (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that it's a stretch to suggest that one short news story and a local guide book qualify as "significant coverage" when it comes to GNG. In fact, I would say the fact that you were only able to find two local sources suggest that this does not closely meet GNG. Mkdw ^talk 06:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the City of Long Beach, there is no "Long Beach bike path." The article cited from the LA Times is from 1986, and things have changed in Long Beach since then. The Wikipedia article references components of the Shoreline Bike Path but seems to also reference bits of the San Gabriel River bike path. The references do not make it any more accurate. Rednikki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In researching the second source, the guidebook appears to be referring to a different bike path than the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article says the bike path is 4.2 miles long; the source says it is 6 miles long. The bike path it shows on the map is called Shoreline Bike Path. I appreciate Oakshade's desire to keep the page, but if it's going to be kept it needs to be renamed and massively improved.Rednikki (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Long Beach refers to a section of the Long Beach which it entitles "Shoreline Bike Path" in the Shoreline Village area. The sources refer to the entire bike path as the "Long Beach Bike Path". (There's no reason what the City of Long Beach is the only definitive source that negates all other sources). I would advise "Shoreline Bike Path" have a re-direct to this article. --Oakshade (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times article you cited never names the bike path (it calls it "a $1.4-million bicycle path that will span the Long Beach oceanfront" but never cites a name), but the route description is specific to the Shoreline Pedestrian Bike Path. The bicycle path in the LA Times article is described as running "along the ocean from Alamitos Avenue to 54th Place in Belmont Shore." That is the precise description of the Shoreline Bicycle Path as laid out on the City of Long Beach website. It's also called the Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath on Yelp and on TripAdvisor. The Los Angeles Times has mentioned that there are two bicycle paths along this route but did not find either notable enough to mention by name. Since the City of Long Beach maintains the class I bicycle paths in the city, the name they give would arguably be the definitive name, and as shown by Yelp and TripAdvisor it's also the commonly used colloquial name. Only one description you've given mentions a "Long Beach Bicycle Path" and that's "A Guide to Great Road Bike Rides," which then states that the route it describes covers multiple bicycle paths ("This ride is confined to the bicycle paths in Long Beach..."). Interestingly, it does not name the bicycle paths in question, perhaps because it does not consider them notable enough to name. Rednikki (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the Shoreline Pedestrian Bikepath is notable enough to merit its own page, I do think that, especially given the historical article and information you cited, it is worthy of incorporating into the Long Beach, California page. Rednikki (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources and article improvement via Oakshade. WP:GNG is met. WP:HEY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 3 May 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) 11:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist rationale:Most opinions were given before sources were found and the page worked on.

Weak delete: This bike path seems to have some type of local coverage, perhaps more than other bike paths in the state, but in this case WP:LOCAL conflicts with WP:GNG, which alone should not be used to determine notability being that it states presumes, not always. Therefore, more sources outside of Long Beach are needed for me to vote a firm keep. Also, List of Los Angeles bike paths does not have an entry for this path, so merging is not out of the question here, which was also suggested in the first AfD in 2009. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated this for deletion about 4 years ago procedurally to unbundle a group AfD. I went back and looked at a few of the articles that were in the bundled AfD and of the tenish articles, 3 of them have since been deleted and the other ones are not in good shape. There really isn't anything here that is notable enough to warrant it's own article. It seems like the "bike path" is just part of the beach. Nothing special or noteworthy about it. Tavix | Talk 06:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Los Angeles bike paths. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Altowelli[edit]

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

This has been a minimally-referenced BLP for some months, basically a CV tended by IPs without the level of referencing or evidence of Notability improving. I flagged it for WP:PROD today on the rationale "No reliable 3rd party evidence that this person is more than a man with a job; article is sourced to articles by the subject and firms for which he has worked. Fails WP:JOURNALIST." The Prod was removed by IP without comment. I am bringing this to AfD now on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Callanecc (talk

• contribs • logs) 02:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems to be self-promotion. Nothing on the page makes the subject notable and, as mentioned above, sources are written by himself. The inclusion of an "influenced by" category (with Noam Chomsky's name misspelled) seems to indicate he wrote this himself. In any case, I think there is a general agreement that Wikipedia is not an online CV Gmkeros (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

František Dominik Dobranský[edit]

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

No reliable evidence confirming that this person ever lived. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's no bombproof reliable evidence that Jesus ever lived either but we have an article on him. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus. This writer lived (?) in the second half of the 20th century. There's not a single independent mention of him in online resources, which is strange. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems rather hoaxish, and if not a hoax outright still does not appear to show any notability besides "known for his quotes about love.". No sources online, no results for either the English or the Czech version of the name. In addition the two sources given are general reference works for Czech (and Slovak) writers, without any actual page mentioned where references to this person could be found. It would be best to have some Czech person check this [pun intended], but considering that not even cs.wikipedia.org has anything on topic I'd assume that this is a hoax. Gmkeros (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it is a hoax. As for the sources in the article, "Potápěč – Czech and Slovak Literature Resources" is not a very reputable source (looks like a fan site) and doesn't mention his name. The book "Česká literatura od počátků k dnešku" is a comprehensive and reliable source on Czech literature, however, it doesn't mention name of František Dominik Dobranský. I guess that the sources were copied from Czech_literature#References and pasted to the article to create the semblance of credibility. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Cavarrone (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no trace. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:09, 10 May 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. Ironholds (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After 7 years, this list still does not have a single reliable source. Tagged with {{Original research}} since October 2006. What are the criteria for inclusion on the list? To quote one user from talk page: How exactly does one define "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement"? В и к и T 08:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure WP:OR, uncited for one good reason: No citations are to be found for this hopelessly vague concept. The user on the talk page is correct, how do you define this? A: a ragbag of unrelated items, each defined more or less by its separate section heading. This is Not Notable "within the meaning of the act", and everything that Wikipedia shouldn't be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per Chiswick Chap: this is not a sensible topic for an article. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and the prior AfD is utterly unconvincing. Title is absolutely absurd, the content is pure OR and synthesis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has a complicated history and the criteria for inclusion have been much discussed. Whatever the original intentions of the creator I just do not see how the list an be sufficiently defined within the terms of the title. At the heart of it seems to be a concept of state, or statehood, into which these entities do not fit and the article seems to have been a split from Dependent territory. But there are a great many political entities which are not independent states in the sense of being members of the United Nations. How they came into being, what arrangements exist for administration, the manner in which their relationship with other states is incorporated in treaty is a function of history. Some of what are now constituent states of the USA owe their origins to international treaty, as of course do many states which are members of the United Nations. The special constitutional arrangements of Svalbard, the Aland Islands and Hong Kong are interesting, and in some senses peculiar, but so are those of the Channel Islands or Belgium. It does great injustice to the complexities of their history to say that, for example, Vatican City is the creation of treaty; what treaty or other settlement did was to formulate an arrangement which fitted the circumstances including local needs and the interests of the guaranteeing powers or entities. --AJHingston (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons it was kept the last time - it's a list of places that are listed in List of Countries that are neither sovereign states or dependencies; maybe rename to Areas of Special Sovereignty or similar. If the problem is that the title doesn't match the content, change the title, don't delete the thing. Diego (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it also lists sovereign states. Can you provide some reliable source for the term "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement"? We don't know what it means. It lists sovereign states like Andorra and Vatican, it lists Republika Srpska (but not Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina?). If you ask me, the whole list is WP:OR crap.--В и к и T 22:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that can be dealt with by renaming the article. Diego (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately that is not true - there is no acceptable name for a random ragbag of things that have nothing in common that actually distinguishes them from things around them that the authors have decided not to include (the preceding phrase being a bit long for use as a title). The problem is not naming but ABSENCE OF LIST CRITERIA, i.e. a proper way of deciding what goes in and what does not. If such criteria existed, we could easily find a usable title; but there aren't any, which is fatal to the article. A second fatal problem is that there are no reliable sources anywhere which define the non-existent criteria. A consequence of the indefinability of this list is that things which one might have guessed would clearly belong outside the list's vague scope - like sovereign states - seem to be included in the general miasma; and it appears that User:Diego Moya indeed believed those states should have been excluded, so there is probably nobody who knows what this list should contain. It's a disaster and an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what the article should be named, but it should be kept. Nations that exists with special conditions or control of more than one nation? All of these are recognized by the international community, so the current name is fine. It has specific inclusion criteria. Dream Focus 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot call all of these nations, though. And there are sovereign states, dependences and constituent parts of states which also were the creations of, or are subject to, international treaties and agreements concerning their status and territorial integrity. What do these have in common not shared with others, other than a subjective judgement of quaintness? --AJHingston (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of entities which have or have had their own government while still being governed to an extent by a different government beyond theirs. How about that for a title then? That covers everyone nicely on the list. Dream Focus 12:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be another one of these situations where the component parts are notable and the grouping isn't p b p 12:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and the suggested "title" makes it clear both that the existing title is unusable, and that any alternative will be hopeless, for the reasons I and other editors have given. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking the title of an article is not a valid reason to delete it. The information is encyclopedic. Dream Focus 13:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the detailed criticism that has been written by me and others. It is nothing whatsoever to do with not liking the current or suggested titles: it is to do with their essential incoherence, because of the utter failure of the article to conform to any workable set of list inclusion criteria. If the list were coherent it would be easy to find a title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All OR, all the time p b p 01:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I note that those advocating keep are also suggesting the name should be changed. As the present content is only unreferenced OR and is contained in List of treaties, there is absolutely no loss to WP by deletion. If, at a later stage, an editor can find the right title, the references and avoid WP:OR it will be easier to create without the present baggage.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete none of the keep votes are convincing and do not address the fundamental issue of what criteria to get on this list. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My comment at the AfD in 2007 was: "Entities sui generis have played an important historical and political role in international law and this is a useful collection of them. The article needs expansion and rewriting, but there is a useful base to work with and it should stay." The relevant criterion for inclusion is a territory (current or, perhaps, historical) whose political status is neither that of an "ordinary" nation or sovereigh state, nor that of an "ordinary" dependent territory (or trust territory or the like), but is the subject of a specific treaty regime among two or more states or parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is helpful, but many states and territories are extraordinary in their own way and the categories into which we place them may seem arbitrary. I am not clear whether this article is intended to be about the fact that there are places that do not fall within the accepted definitions of state, etc - that are as you say, sui generis (like Antarctica), or about the fact that there can be special international treaties governing the status of an area (which would include things like the Panama Canal Zone or Berlin after WW2) in which case the list would be long and diverse even if it were confined to those arrangements currently in force, though I am not sure that it should. In either case there needs to be explicit and referenced use of accepted criteria in international law and I am not sure that we end up with the same article. --AJHingston (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad, can you please fix the article? In particular, can you:

Write a few sentences explaining the criteria for inclusion (citing reliable sources, of course)?
Remove from the list all entries that do not meet these criteria?
Change the title if necessary?

If you can do this, I will gladly withdraw this nomination.--В и к и T 09:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original creator seemed to have four specific territories in mind: Åland, Svalbard, Hong Kong and Macau. Because there is no clear definition or source linking these, the topic is open to the introduction of disputed territories such as Palestine and Northern Ireland. This makes the topic more trouble than it's worth — just wait until Gibraltar is added to the list! :) If we seem to have a gap, then the topic needs to start with a good source. Here's an example of such a source which talks about these four areas as "special regions" in the context of a spectrum of sub-national jurisdictions. The latter title seems to be a better place to start. Warden (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's troubling is that some of the content in this article deserves to be on Wikipedia, but the way that it is organized is clearly original research. The good parts should be moved to appropriate other articles. Andrew³²⁷ 22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a unique way of classifying certain quasi-autonomous territories. It is quite different from United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Such a list as this one would be expected to be rather dynamic, even more than the UN list. As long as there is evidence in the main articles cited for inclusion on this list, it should be allowed. Attleboro (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FC Ridings[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)

Amateur team playing at the notional 18th level of English football, far far below the cut-off point for notability generally accepted at WP:FOOTY -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A long way from WP:NFOOTY and I couldn't find any sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. (I guess WP:A7 doesn't apply here, since being in a particular league could be construed as a claim to notability.) Dricherby (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the league is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article surely a team within it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.125 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't follow at all, that's like saying that because a corporation is notable everyone who works there is notable too. Clubs have to display their own notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CLUB, the article fails the notability criterias for clubs in general. WP:CLUB is an alternative criteria from the broader WP:ORG, which is listed under the criterias for WP:A7. WP:NFOOTY is only for people (players/managers/referees). The WikiProject Football has written an essay WP:FOOTYN, to detail the consensus criterias for Players, Clubs and Leagues. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Teams only 2 divisions higher have their own Wiki entries also the team is officially recognized by English FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't have. They are reserve teams of higher playing first teams. Linked are the first teams (one has a FA Cup match in his history, the other ... don't know why it's notable).--Ben Ben (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, those first teams are only 4 above, and the point still stands that the club is a official Charter Standard FA football club, with notable players over the years including former Hull City and North Ferriby players and even a former Portugal youth player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article on Wikipedia, a subject must be "notable". This means that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is necessary so that we can write an accurate and balanced article. The words "significant", "relibale" and "independent" have specific meanings so please read the linked article to find out exactly what they mean. (In particular, coverage in local media only is not usually enough to establish notability, though it's fine for sourcing facts in the article.) To argue for keeping the article, you need to show that it meets the notability criteria, according to the guidelines at WP:CLUB, WP:FOOTYN or the General Notability Guideline. Please note that notability is not inherited, which means that a club does not automatically become notable just because some notable person played for it. Also, note that arguments along the lines of "We should have an article on X because there is an article on the similar subject Y" are usually not considered valid. Dricherby (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable - the widely accepted criteria for English football clubs is to have played at level 10 or above, or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase, and it fails to meet any of these. Number 5 7 11:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see the harm in keeping the article, and despite my antipathy to football I feel like this should still be part of Wikipedia. But yes, it clearly isn't notable enough Gmkeros (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOHARM, WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons for keeping an article. This is a non-notable amateur football team, a breakaway side (initially) of another non-notable team, playing in a very low tier. Also fails WP:GNG by approximately a thousand miles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a subject must be "notable". This means that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" How are the English FA, various sport sites and newspaper articles not independent of the source and reliable?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English FA are clearly not going to be independent, and that shouldn't need explaining. Also, local coverage isn't usually very independent and is rarely that reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources in the article do not give significant coverage. [25] and [26] are just WP:ROUTINE announcements of sports results; [27] mentions F.C. Ridings only in passing (it's an article about another club, which mentions they'll be playing F.C. Ridings the following day). Dricherby (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless articles from other clubs etc with match reports/previews of games against the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite more than one non-local source that gives significant coverage to the club. If these sources exist, the subject is notable and the article is secure. Dricherby (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reeves, Mark (2009-01-19). "Cliffe FC vs. FC Ridings (H) 17th January 2009". Cliffe FC.

Reeves, Mark (2011-01-09). "Match Report". HU17.net. Retrieved 5 May 2013.

Reeves. "Match Report". Easington United. Retrieved 5 May 2013.

A couple from just a quick search.Unsigned comment by Markreeves94 14:07, 5 May 2013 ref tags removed to make links visible by Dricherby (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end and please stop citing yourself as the author of sources that you did not write. I have asked you to do this twice, now. With the possible exception of hu17, none of the three sources you give is reliable. None of them gives more than WP:ROUTINE coverage (quoting from WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia"). Please read the Wikipedia guidelines and policies that I am linking: they explain the requirements. If you don't understand them, either ask here or on your talk page. Dricherby (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that's a match report or preview is not anything other than routine. None of the sources you've just cited are reliable, or national, sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles like this should be invited, it provides information on local football which may not be relevant to the entire world granted, but within East Yorkshire it is useful, also my main issue is that article is less than a day old and it has been heavily attacked already possibly before more information is added, these are the type of articles which make Wikipedia what it is and I believe it has a right to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.125 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should "invite" articles on clearly non-notable topics? Sorry, but that's really not what Wikipedia is about...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is about improving knowledge and providing varied and reliable information, when this isn't available where possible it should be contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.125 (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's your opinion. Wikipedia's opinion, established by broad consensus of its editors, is that Wikipedia is about this. Dricherby (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you should take note of the 5th pillar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.125 (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fifth pillar means that the rules can change over time, not that "anything goes", in particular things that are against long-standing consensus. Dricherby (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Mark Reeves who created the page is presumably one of the two Mark Reeveses who plays for the club. That would indicate a clear conflict of interest. Dricherby (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been written impartial and neutral including where applicable external cites/references to other authors articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreeves94 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is indeed written neutrally, and I commend you on that point, but the COI information is still valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surely the fact that they have won a league which features on wiki is a reason for notability178.78.77.237 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasons for notability are documented here: WP:NOTABILITY. Dricherby (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB first ever edit by above IP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that this article is not intended "Finished" and I and many others have lots more information to add, time depending.Markreeves94 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All articles can be improved with time, yes, and a page should never be deleted just because it isn't "finished" – probably no article on Wikipedia is ever really finished, anyway. The issue here isn't the quality of the article but whether there should be an article at all. Establishing notability is absolutely crucial. Dricherby (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even within notability range.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this club has not played at a level where there is a consensus that notability is inherited, and the club fails general notability guideline as there isn't enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries Supply Company[edit]

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

No WP:RS sources on the article. Google news search shows no RS to vet notability. Fails WP:CORP Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertisment Gmkeros (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short of visibility too.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should never have been accepted from AfC -- I notified the ed. accepting it to see if he had any comments. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 11 May 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) Mediran (t • c) 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro PDF[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be notable to me. I see a ton of passing mentions in some reliable sources on Google News and an academic journal search, but I've yet to find multiple major independent reliable sources. There's some small sources (local) but not enough to make me feel it's notable. It also reads like an advertisement or puff piece or product website, not an article. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the software was the subject of an article in the Independent, and the company was featured in the San Francisco Business Times. There are quite a few Google Books hits as well, some of which seem to discuss the software's features in some detail. Huon (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for passing WP:GNG: [28], [29], [30]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reviewed, if not always positively, in prominent PC magazines and websites. But, short of general media visibility.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the sources provided here. However, the article needs to be cleaned-up to meet standards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it is used by a lot of users worldwide. For example, CNET Downloads could be a stats detail supporting this page's existence. Compfreak7 (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lova Sign[edit]

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

Article is about an unremarkable hand gesture. One of its three references is a Facebook page; the other two are about some event in 2015. In addition, it is a barely-paraphrased copy of [31] (but G12 is only for blatant copy-and-pastes, yes? Someone made an effort here). Ignatz mice•talk 03:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:XBALL. This is promotional material for the newly-founded Lovaganza Foundation and apparently as-yet unreleased Lovaganza trilogy of films. See also the speedied Lovaganza 2015. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: total failure to meet WP:GNG. Zero reliable sources in the whole world. Amusingly, Google Books gives one hit, from 1831, but Recaptcha let them down – the source actually says "love-sign". Dricherby (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: amusingly poorly written promotional material for something extremely obscure - for instance, the Twitter page only has nine followers and two tweets. --Beerest355 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as GNG failure. I accompany this opinion with the PUKA SIGN, left hand over my forehead, palm inwards, head slightly tilted back, right hand over my gaping mouth, palm inwards, eyes crossed, while making gagging noises... Carrite (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tibbenham[edit]

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

WP:RS - Lacks reliable sources WP:GNG - Does not meet notability guidelines. WP:PROMO / WP:SPAM - Article has been edited my a blocked editor who is believe to be WP:PAID. PeterWesco (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. as I wrote in my prod, "non notable director, lacks multiple significant roles, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of pr and non reliable sources". duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J-Shin[edit]

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

The only claim of notability that this article meets is #2 in WP:NMUSIC which is itself under discussion. This artist is lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources. The Billboard article referenced in the article mentions the artist but is primarily focused on Atlantic, the distribution company here. The other reference is a directory entry on the one album that charted. Even his hometown Miami Herald has only a single brief article on him. No other Google web, news or book hits that aren't links to sales sites. The claims to notability in the article are a single which did not chart and album which peaked at 71 on the R&B/Hip Hop chart. RadioFan (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RadioFan (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 April 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one barely-notable album may be theoretically enough to satisfy NMUSIC: but when no other criteria is even close to being met, then this article has no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, it should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Parallax Saga[edit]

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

PROD was contested. The only reason a stand-alone article on this topic should exist is if the information about this story was weighing down the articles The Parallax: Hypersleep Dialogues and The Parallax II: Future Sequence. Also, if this article to were exist, it should also be based on the band's explanation of the plot, not someone else's literary analysis. According to the only source in the article: "[...] we apologise if some of the explanations are aimless, or even completely incorrect. The theories and interpretation in these articles are simply that; our interpretations. Everything outlined here is subject to change if enough evidence to the contrary is presented. Please feel free to elaborate and come up with your own ideas of the story and continue the discussion in the comments section below." Fezmar9 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:33, 28 April 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with the two other articles mentioned above. Notable only in their context. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable by itself, no indications that it has some notability. Looks to be against WP:GNG. Might be worth maybe a passing note or two in the two album articles or the one about the band, but that's all that's warranted. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 03:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cô gái u80[edit]

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

Deprodded by author. Only reference doesn't mention the book. Two other links are self-published, third is a 404 error. Needs references to indicate notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:45, 28 April 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comes from the existence of sources, not the contents of the article. Dricherby (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no English-language sources found, either for the Vietnamese or English titles of the book. Perhaps there are sources in Vietnamese but it seems unlikely: Google doesn't translate Vietnamese well but the author's blog [32] mentions the launch of the book and doesn't say anything about any reviews or reaction. Dricherby (talk) 09:04, 5 May 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 Doctor of Medicine#Argentina. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Título de Médico[edit]

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

There's nothing specific of this topic that may not be detailed at the general Physician article. There's no content to merge anywhere Cambalachero (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The various professional certifications in the different countries are different, and an article on each is appropriate. Atthe very least, a redirect would be needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since it's already discussed here Doctor of Medicine#Argentina. Not seeing how this is more than just a region specific qualification. Funny ^Pika! 17:01, 28 April 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed by FunnyPika. A proper article could definitely be written on this subject but, until then, the redirect seems more appropriate, to avoid content forking. Dricherby (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor of Medicine#Argentina where it's already covered. Zad68 03:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shamel Patten[edit]

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

WP:GNG - Lacks notability WP:RS - Zero sources. WP:PROMO/WP:SPAM - Article was created by banned crew of paid editors. PeterWesco (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:25, 28 April 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability, no sources except subject. HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another member of The Sound Killers. This one created by a sock of User:Thesoundkillers. At least that bit is different. Other members articles were created by User:TSKREO (The Sound Killers were started by REO). This is just more promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under WP:CSD#A7. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya Pratihari[edit]

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

Passing mention in a few articles in notable newspapers. Does not meet notability criteria. Most mention are in non-notable blogs/posts. Dwaipayan (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dangal (TV Channel)[edit]

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

PROD removed and, in my opinion, fails WP:GNG in its current state (unreferenced, etc.) Uberaccount (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be. Dangal is not a known channel so you cant blame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.12.33 (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article for a non-notable TV channel, its only claims to notability fail WP:NOTINHERITED. May justify a redirect to Viacom 18. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardcore fail of WP:BROADCAST. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:05, 6 May 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.

^ "Bike Paths". City of Long Beach. Retrieved 28 April 2013.

[King-1] King, John (25 May 2012). "Golden Gate Bridge's Plaza Flawed but Workable". San Francisco Chronicle.

[Jeffrey-2] Edna Jeffrey Biography and synopsis of her novel, Till I'm with You Again.

[Examiner-3] San Francisco Examiner. May 27, 1982. No. 147, p. 2. Golden Gate Bridge - 45th anniversary of completion.

[Kligman-4] Kligman, David (25 May 2012). "From Sea to Shining Sea: PG&E's Earley Joins Tribute to Golden Gate Bridge". Currents. PG&E.

[The_Contest-5] Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest.

[Finnila-6] Auerbach, Stevanne. The Contest - Finnila's-related exerts.

[Best-7] San Francisco Bay Guardian - N:o 37, 1984.

[8] "Bike Paths". City of Long Beach. Retrieved 28 April 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]