Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 September	19 September >

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 no consensus. I don't think there is consensus here about what to do with the article. While most similar cases would be deleted or merged under BLP1E, there are reasonable arguments that this case is high-profile enough to merit an exception to the rule. Both sides of the discussion make reasonable arguments here, and I feel that no consensus has been reached. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin

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

Probably a WP:ONEEVENT. There seems to already be consensus that Martin himself is not notable - see this. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Are you kidding? — goethean 00:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not kidding. This is a recently created spinoff of Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Since consensus was previous that Martin did not merit a standalone article, it seems only fair to test it again. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~. Clearly notable, a wealth of reliable sources document his life. No valid reason given for deletion. — goethean 00:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding is not a reason to keep. I don't think that Martin is notable for an article himself, but I already know which way this AfD will go. Wikipedia needs to really look at its US bias in AfDs etc. if it wants to be taken seriously in the rest of the world.Martin451 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and keep This proposed article is not about the shooting, it is about the person known as Trayvon Martin, a subject that became notable in February 2012. While the shooting is what brought this subject to our attention, this proposed article doesn't explore the night of February 26 and the incident in depth like it's sister article. This article tells the story of a subject's life before that night and how his death inspired complete strangers to take up a cause of someone they never met. This article also explains his digital footprint he left behind on his social media accounts and how the media reported on them and which lawyers tried to use against him in a court of law, which is becoming quite common and questionable. This subject has also been specifically mentioned by name by President Obama, once in a press conference and again in a historic speech (as a result of this subject); see Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. This subject has also received international attention and has other Wikipedia articles in other languages about him and this incident; see Here and Here and Here. The death of this subject received more media coverage in 2012 than the presidential election, happening in the same timeframe. The subject is also listed as Notable people sharing the surname "Martin" in a Wikipedia article which was added in this diff and is in the WP:CATEGORY of media related controversies in the United States. The death of the subject inspired a online petition that received over 2.2million signatures – at that time (and to this date afaik), the largest number of signatures for any campaign in Change.org's history. There is still significant interest in the subject, as of September 16, 2013, Trayvon Martin (at redirect of SoTM) had been viewed over 3300 times. In addition to the six Wikipedia articles referenced above, the subject is also referenced on Angela Corey's WP article, by far having the biggest section on her page and Martin has a section on Sanford, Florida,s page as well. From the original article, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, there have also been these articles created as a result of the subjects death: Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin - State of Florida v. George Zimmerman - Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago - George Zimmerman-which was just recently created. It stands to follow we should have an article on the deceased subject, instead of just references to the subject in numerous other Wikipedia articles. This article is meant to provide a historical biography of the entirety of the subject's life and inform the reader who this notable subject was prior to February 26, 2012. Additionally, it's in compliance with WP:BLP - WP:RS - WP:V - WP:NPOV - WP:NOTE - WP:TITLE -WP:IUP. Thank you for taking the time to read it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:GNG -Davey2010 Talk 01:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm going to have say that I'd delete this article. His notability is only for the shooting. His prior life that has nothing to do with the shooting has no relevance in this encyclopedia. WP:MEMORIAL comes to mind, even though it doesn't directly cover this matter. Nevertheless, the details having to do with the shooting and aftermath should be kept at the shooting pages. If those phrases were removed, it would only cover personal details that don't really belong here. For that reason, I have to vote delete. This really doesn't seem appropriate.

To people saying "WTF", please consider our notability guidelines, rather than following gut reactions. RGloucester — 📬 02:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the shooting. His death was tragic, but that doesn't mean that we should put up a memorial that lists his hobbies and favorite bands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Martin is notable for one event. Everything about him that is important is due to how it relates to that event, and creating an article is forking. Isaidnoway says that strangers took up his case and that is important, but it is part of the case. Similarly the details of his life are only relevant insofar as they relate to the case, particularly the degree of responsibility, if any, for the confrontation with Zimmerman. Sacco and Vanzetti was a far more famous case, and they attracted worldwide support, yet we have only one article. TFD (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is information that doesn't fit well anywhere else. Editors need a place to expand using the many available sources. If in a couple years after this case is old history and everyone has forgotten, an AfD will be more clear if this is truly notable enough for a standalone article. For now I think if editors want to work on it they should be allowed the room, and not micromanage too tightly with 1E. — Green Cardamom (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is his early life relevant to the encyclopedia? Why does it matter if he played football or not? These things do not belong, and look very similar to a WP:MEMORIAL. RGloucester — 📬 15:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His early life is relevant because that's what a biographical entry about a subject does, it provides the reader with a complete overview of a person's life. And since the bio is about a deceased 17-year-old, naturally the info about a 17-year-old is limited in scope and will reflect only his early childhood and teenage years. A child and a teenager's life is limited to a very select criteria of details like; high school, football, texting, tweeting, cars, girls. There was widespread RS reporting on biographical details about this subject's early life and teenage years and that is reflected in the article. This article isn't about what made him notable, but rather who this notable figure was.— Isaidnoway (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that he doesn't warrant a biographical entry. While alive, he was never notable. His only notability derives from his death, and from the implications of it. Just because newspapers and tabloids spew endless details and speculation about his personal life does not mean that that information is encyclopedic. In other words, the figure himself is not notable. The event of his death is. All details about his life necessary for the shooting article should stay at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. The rest is tosh that is not needed, and is merely a WP:MEMORIAL. RGloucester — 📬 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point is Martin became notable, as per WP:GNG, when significant coverage of biographical details about him started to become sourced. Notability doesn't have to occur when a subject is alive.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the following bit? "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". Wikipedia is not a memorial, neither is it a newspaper, nor a repository of numerous trivialities. RGloucester — 📬 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sure did. I know how Wikipedia works. I expected the same old arguments. I knew when I pressed that 'save page' button, it was going to be WP:CONSENSUS that determined the outcome of this article. I read in an essay once on WP that discussions where the outcome relies on a consensus, it's really not about the quality of your argument, but rather the quantity of editors who share the same opinion. That is so true. Whatever the turnout, I'll be content. Cheers, nice talking to you.— Isaidnoway (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for flippancy, and what've you've said is the opposite of what's true. The quality of the argument takes precedence. This is not a vote. The problem is that your argument relies on an appeal to sentiment with regard to a dead child. Not to say that one shouldn't feel horrid about what happened, but that that feeling is not what determines what becomes notable or gets a Wikipedia article. RGloucester — ☎ 13:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not advocated for any editor to base a decision, or present an argument based on their emotions. The dead child is notable and meets all criteria for a standalone article. "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close [the discussion] by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it." The way I see this debate - is that some think this figure has gained notability and qualifies under the criteria for a standalone article, while others debate it is not encyclopedic content, is trivial and a memorial. The closer of this discussion will base their decision on the majority view of editor's who shared the same viewpoint of those who have participated in the discussion. I am perfectly content with that, I assume good faith that the predominant view is a reasonable one.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. This is not a WP:POLL the closer should be taking into account arguments presented, not just the number of !voters. !votes like "Are you kidding?", "WTF are you joking ... or just trolling?!.... Seriously wtf?" and "this is a joke right? or?." (see article history) are not conclusive to gaining a consensus or agreement, and do not allow a proper discussion.Martin451 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always assume good faith, but such votes really rub me the wrong way. Especially since most of those who had such votes later changed them to sound less dismissive. Just doesn't sit well with me. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - forfills all criterias of WP:GNG pretty much,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Magnitude and cultural impact of this case and the victim of it pushes this from NOTNEWS to enyclopedic status. I suppose that an argument can be validly made that this forks Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether its called Shooting of Trayvon Martin or not there should only be one article -- this is what readers would expect and should expect since he is notable for his death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin as a WP:1E-notable death. and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. He is notable for having been shot to death by the neighborhood watch that ignored police instructions. It is the circumstances of his death that are significant, including wearing a hoodie, which would be covered in the shooting article. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment George Zimmerman has also been created. It similarly is a 1E-notable person article. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman was in the news again recently for an unrelated incident, so that article seems to be justified. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin became notable, as per WP:GNG, when significant coverage of biographical details about him started to become sourced. The sourcing for bio details about Martin, far outweigh sourcing for Zimmerman's bio details.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. This person's death, however unfortunate, is the only reason we are having this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems to be the exception listed in WP:ONEEVENT regarding the role of the person and the event, and the subject easily passes WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Obviously Martin does not merit a biography beyond the one event and as a memorial. Also, this creates an attractive WP:ATTACK nuisance. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct, as per Users:R.Gloucester, Edgarde, and others. - Boneyard90 (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect afterwords) - Trayvon is not notable just by virtue of being shot. This falls under WP:ONEEVENT - his role is not significant in the event, he is the victim of the shooting, not the perpetrator. Without him, the shooting still might have taken place. Without the perpetrator, it never would've happened. The history of this article should be deleted, and then a redirect created with a clean history. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E, a part of the WP:BLP policy, trumps GNG. Its whole purpose is to discourage (even prohibit, if you take it that far) articles on subjects who are GNG or otherwise notable only for one event. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Martins notability has moved beyond the 1E. Trayvon Martin - the person - has become a cultural icon for some in the African-American community and others as well. They are using his name, his image, to highlight various issues of concern to the black community. President Obama compared himself to Martin to invoke an image of what life is like in this country for an African-American and to point out inequalities in the justice system for young black men in this country. His image is being featured on the cover of Ebony's September 2013 issue and the Editor-in-Chief of Ebony said: "We simply cannot allow the conversations on this issue to come to a standstill. As the leading source for an authoritative perspective on the African-American community, at Ebony we are committed to serving as a hub for Black America to explore solutions, and to giving readers the information and tools they need to help ensure a bright future for all of our children." The October 2013 issue of JET magazine will feature Martin as well. Out of the 6 articles on WP under the Martin/Zimmerman umbrella, this article is #3 in page views after only 4 days of being a standalone, receiving more views than the trial of Zimmerman.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would Martin have ever been covered outside of this 1 event? The answer is no. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that Martin has become a "cultural icon" is an opinion, and not a fact. The facts we have are as follows:

Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman.
The death of Martin has been variously politicized and discussed, with regard to gun laws, race relations, and so on.
Zimmerman's acquittal raised questions about the workings of the criminal justice system.

All of these directly pertain to the shooting and to Martin's death. Had he not been shot, he would not've been notable. Therefore, what is notable is the shooting and its aftermath. Not Martin himself, beyond certain factors pertaining to the shooting. This clearly falls under 1E. All speculation about his personality and life prior to the shooting is not notable, beyond how it pertains to the case. Sure, newspapers and others have spoken endlessly about such details. But they are not encyclopedic, merely sensational and opinion-based. Our job is to report the facts of the situation with regard to the shooting and aftermath. We should mention how Martin's case has been seized upon by various groups, however we do not need to fall into the trap of seizing upon it ourselves, which is clearly not something an encyclopedia should do if intends to maintain a neutral, objective point of view. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get past discussing the shooting and the trial, it's over. The facts that are relevant to this discussion about a standalone article are: Has Martin's notability diminshed any - No. Is Martin receiving media coverage outside this 1E - yes. Is it RS - yes. Is it V - yes. Is it NPOV - yes. And your statement that Martin's case has been "seized upon" by various groups, is not only your opinion, but rather callous to those people who are behind a serious and genuine effort to bring about real change in this country. I don't see any trapdoors. An encyclopedia is also a documentation of history and offers a historical perspective, and Martin has become a notable person of interest in history, and that is a fact.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin is known solely for being shot. Most of the rest of his life are trivia as far as wikipedia is concerned. Some aspects of his life e.g. possible drug use and his wearing a hoodie, relate to the shooting article and trial of Zimmerman article. If he has become a symbol, it is because of him being shot, and Zimmerman acquitted, and this also belongs in the other two articles. Martin himself does not have any other notability outside of that.Martin451 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Serious and genuine effort to bring about real change in this country": what a phrase! It proves you are pushing a POV rather than trying to improve the encyclopedia, and what's more, it shows a clear US-bias, which is a concern that another editor has voiced. Here, we are not trying to change anything. Merely report on the facts and issues. RGloucester — ☎ 12:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I recognize that sourcing has reported on those people who made those statements, you consider that pov pushing? Wow! I call it being a realist and as a WP editor being able to recognize that there is widespread sourcing reporting on this subject and those people. You think an encyclopedia should just shun and censor sourcing that reports on individuals, groups and organizations around the world that initiate dialogue in an effort to change the world they live in. Or is it just the sourcing for this subject and those individuals, groups and organizations who have associated themsleves with Martin here in the United States you wish to shun and censor? Wikipedia has a strong history of including articles about individuals, groups and organizations who have taken up causes here in the states and elsewhere in the world that are sometimes controversial and with a particular pov, and the articles have been steadfast in maintaining a NPOV. See Occupy Wall Street and GLAAD and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Ku Klux Klan and White supremacy and Mohamed Bouazizi and Polly Klaas Foundation. Maybe those articles should be considered for deletion as well because of the pov they represent. No one is advocating that WP push a pov to change anything, but rather WP recognize that sources are reporting on this notable person of interest and the individuals, groups and organizations that have chosen to associate themselves with Martin, and merely report those facts and issues in a NPOV.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have you note that Martin never took-up any causes. He merely died. Obviously the situation would be different if he himself was a notable activist. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like many other dead people, he became notable only in death. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point. BLP only applies to "Living" people and thus WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Many people become notable in death. — Green Cardamom (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our concern is not that he became notable only in death, but that his notability arises only from one event. WP:ONEEVENT applies to both dead and living people, and even though people have cited BLP1E, the same notion exists in the general notability criteria for all people, as you will see at the page that I've linked in this sentence. If he had done anything notable that we did not know about until after he died, then that would be a different circumstance. The fact remains that his only notable action was to die, which is something he himself did not even have control over. This clearly falls under the guideline that I've linked above. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Martin was not an activist. Here's some other people, like Martin, who were not activists and whose notability arose out of a singular event and some of these people's only notable action was to die: See: Isaac Woodard and Scottsboro Boys and Emmett Till and Ossian Sweet and Booker T. Spicely and Irene Morgan and Jacob Wetterling and Michael Dunahee. And there are many many others too numerous to mention that also fall under WP:ONEEVENT that have articles on WP. So if all these people fall under 1E and still have an article, why is that? We must look beyond the 1E to determine if the subject has sustained notability and if there is sourcing about the subject outside the 1E. Martin has that notability and the sourcing which would nullify the 1E clause.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for a keep or delete !vote. I have just had a quick glance at those articles, and there does not seem to be an equivalent article on the actual crime, it is all rolled into one article. With Trayvon Martin we already have the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, as well as an article on the court case. The Shooting article is equivalent to those you mention.Martin451 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those "other" articles are not "crap" they represent some of the most important civil rights issues in America and it's really potentially offensive to label them "crap". Suggest changing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I will also correct that one of those cases has a seperate article on a supreme court case.Martin451 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I suggest to you folk. There is only one article for Emmett Till, not two, showing the difference. Either expand the article on the shooting, or delete the article on the shooting and only have an article on Martin, incorporating the shooting. That would be more logical. Nevertheless, I hold to my opinion on this matter. I agree with the mention of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No one has demonstrated, first and foremost, why someone's act of dying makes it encyclopedic for us to cover parts of that person's life that have nothing to do with what made him notable. RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that Till's article incorporates both the murder and bio details about his life, it certainly doesn't require that all articles on WP have to follow that format. The sourcing has demonstrated that Martin's notability has not diminished and that he has moved beyond the 1E. A biographical entry about a notable person of interest would naturally include details about that person's life. And additionally, both of Till's parents, whose notability derived from the murder of their son, both have articles on WP which include details of their early lives which have nothing to do with how they acquired their notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also states: While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. And in the section "Creation of articles", it states: When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia.— Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't explained how Martin's notability has moved beyond 1E. Any reporting that does exist only does so because of the shooting. Only "one event" occurred to Martin. Even if, under some bizarre circumstance, I was concede to an article on Martin, most of the present content would be have be removed as trivial and un-needed. It reads like a memorial, which is something Wikipedia is not. It glorifies a normal child going about his life, and tries to bring out sympathy in the reader. This is not neutral, and unacceptable.

And I agree, that doesn't require all articles to have that format. It is merely an example. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability here goes beyond the 1E, he has become a social symbol across a broad swatch of society after his death, he is more than just another crime victim, his demonstrable impact on society is enough to merit a separate article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He had no demonstrable impact on society. His death may have done, and as such it is described in the shooting article. I use the word "may" there because it is too close to his death to really know whether this incident has had demonstrable impact on society. You may want to see WP:RECENCY. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:Isaidnoway - WP:ONEEVENT is summarized as such "Would the subject have received any coverage had it not been for this one event?" If the answer is yes (as is the case with some notable persons), then the 1E does not apply. If the answer is no, then 1E applies and the person is not notable. Had it not been for the shooting he would not have any coverage at all. Furthermore, since his part in the incident was unwilling (one must assume), that further influences the fact that his role in the event was not significant and major enough to overcome 1E. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear him, hear him! RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shooting of Trayvon Martin per WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no practical way to merge the content as it is too long so much information would be lost, if there was a merge. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, merge what can be merged and let the rest get deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may rephrase for him - merge what is appropriate. 90% of the information in the huge article is not needed. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; that's exactly what I was trying to say. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why anyone would assume his part in the incident was unwilling when it has already been well documented by sourcing that he was a willing and significant participant in the encounter, and at the very least, partially responsible for his own death. Describing Martin's role in this incident as not significant, seems like a strategy of focused distraction to construct the event as an encounter between two individuals who were unrelated in any way and diminish Martin's role in the encounter as having little or no significance. Martin's participation in the event was equal (if not greater) to that of his counterpart and it is this significant participation by Martin which made him stand for something beyond himself.

WP:ONEEVENT also states: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His role was not a large one. He was walking home or whatever, and was approached and confronted by another. This confrontation resulted in his death. He did not initiate the action against him, that was Zimmerman's prerogative. He did not choose to die. He did not even choose conflict. The individuals were unrelated, and had no prior contact.

Furthermore, you are projecting onto Martin. Martin himself stood for nothing, that we know of. The projections that other place on him do not warrant an article beside the one on the shooting, where that can be dealt with. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that his role was not a large one is contradicted by RS. Martin is the one who initially confronted Zimmerman when he was still sitting in his truck, which is documented in his call to the police and in statements to police. And your claims that he "did not initiate the action" and "did not even choose conflict" sound like they were taken directly from the talking points of Martin supporters. The sourcing and evidence produced at Zimmerman's trial indicated that Martin did initiate the action by punching Zimmerman in the face first and indeed chose conflict over returning to the house where he was staying. By chance, have you seen the photo of Zimmerman with a bloody and swollen nose? All these details and countless others outlining the significance of Martin's role in the incident are well sourced and documented. Thank you for clarifying that your knowledge of this incident is limited, now I understand your position.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be refusing to acknowledge, much less answer, my question that is important to the closure of this AfD - Would Trayvon Martin be covered was it not for this event? The answer is no. You seem to be inputting your personal opinions about Trayvon into this AfD, which is something that you should try to stop. If you have proof other than "well I think he had a significant role because it makes me feel all tingly and bad inside that he got shot and now I think he's an icon" please present it, and I'll be happy to change my mind. I'm afraid that I must assume at this time you cannot come up with any evidence for a significant role. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your known answer question - Obviously, Martin wouldn't have been covered if it hadn't been for this event. Emmett Till and his parents wouldn't have articles on WP if it hadn't been because of one event. John Hinckley, Jr. wouldn't have an article on WP if it hadn't been for one event. There are countless other's as well that have articles on WP because of one event, and not a single one would have been covered if it hadn't been for the event they were involved in. Amid all the widespread reliably sourced coverage about this incident and the significance of Martin's role in it, I find it incredulous you need to see sourcing. But here are some RS with collected news and commentary you may wish to peruse to get some background information on Martin's role in this incident. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and USA Today and Orlando Sentinel and ABC News and TIME Magazine and here are President Obama's remarks about this teenager (with a questionable and controversial background) that he compared himself to. Here are some highlights from his speech which would seem to debunk your theory of Martin's insignificant role in this incident: "This is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them...I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front...And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men..." And yes, I chose to use the word "icon" based on the definition of the term; a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something. In closing - FYI, I am not a family member or relative of Martin, not a friend and not an acquaintance of the family or this deceased teenager. His death did not make me feel tingly and bad inside either, as I recognize through the ample RS presented above that he chose to place himself in this situation which resulted in his demise, which seems rather significant as evidenced by the widespread reporting on this notable person of interest.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, because other people have slipped through and gotten articles that also violate 1E, we must now keep this one. Okay, I'm done here. You've disproven your whole argument for me. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was sort of on the fence about this one, but yes, I do think he passes GNG. I appreciate the BIO1E argument, since it's fair to say all of his notability stems from one event (which, unfortunately, happens to be his death). But he's also been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources for over a year and a half now. The main shooting article is far too large anyway, so this is legitimate as a spin-off; that also means merging is a poor choice. —BDD (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage does not necessarily mean that that info is encyclopedic, which the GNG most patently states. How would you deal with the trivialities of this article? With the details on his "typical teenage life"? The way the article is framed now, it is not acceptable. It reads like a memorial, and is totally skewed towards a certain POV. If this article were to survive, I think the only possible option is to nuke it and start over. RGloucester — ☎ 03:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the article should be kept, there may be something to your point regarding NPOV. I took a quick glance at the article, looking for a few things such as the woman's jewelry that Martin was caught with in his backpack along with a large screwdriver described as a burglary tool, and I didn't see it in the article. There may also be negative information about Martin's life that comes out if Martin's family sues Zimmerman for wrongful death and Zimmerman's lawyers present evidence for the trial. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bob. My keep vote should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the article precisely as it stands. There are some WP:UNDUE issues, especially with the negative coverage, but you could very easily winnow all that out and still be left with something that easily passes GNG. RGloucester, I don't know what you mean by saying GNG "patently states" ... a requirement that coverage be encyclopedic, in nature? Is that what you're saying? It's not what GNG says. —BDD (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your dearest pardon for not making myself clearer. I've written above about this. There is a quite important part of the GNG that I shall quote:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

As you may see, just because he has coverage in sources doesn't mean that it belongs in Wikipedia. There are valid reasons why not to include information found in other sources, such as newspapers, in an encyclopedia. That is because the two serve different purposes. I hope this clarifies what I meant. RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not suggesting newspaper coverage doesn't count towards GNG. Sure, if the sort of coverage included in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER or WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is involved, that's one thing. And respectable newspapers trafficking rumors is another. If the shooting were last week, I'd probably agree with you. But if we look at the same referencing and come to different conclusions regarding GNG, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. —BDD (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm referring to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, among other things. Certain trivialities that may be a good scoop for a newspaper, I would say, don't belong in an encyclopedia. For varied reasons, but especially WP:RECENCY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I would suggest that most coverage about Mr Martin, such as the bits on him "saving his father's life" and going to an aviation camp, fall into this category. All we need to know, and all that matters from historical perspective, is that he was shot, and that his shooting has wide ranging implications, which we must detail. Other than that, only spartan biographical details are needed, and can easily fit into the shooting article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ONEEVENT, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."

Also I think that many readers would like to know more about a person who is as widely known as Trayvon Martin. —Bob K31416 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readers may want to know, but an encyclopedia is not the place for them to look for such details. You don't go to New York Times when looking for TMZ. As said above, his role was most patently not a large one. He was merely shot. RGloucester — ☎ 03:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a Wikipedia article Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Wikipedia is the place for people to look for "such details" about Trayvon Martin, per the quote I gave from WP:ONEEVENT. I don't see the basis for your conclusion that his role as the person who was shot dead at the end of a violent physical conflict is not a large part of the event. And as I responded to your comment below, perhaps it would help make your point about what is not encyclopedic if you could find some written guidance in Wikipedia that you could share here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If readers want gossip on Martin, then go to US Weekly, the Daily Mail etc. So what if Martin was in a park the night before he was shot telling jokes, or swore occasionally and got caught once doing some graffiti, none of this is notable as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is just trivia. Everything notable about him can fit into the article about the shooting, the rest is just about an average un-notable person.Martin451 (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What type of content do we want? That's another question we need to ask. This is an encyclopedia. Look at this sentence, taken from the article, for example "When Martin was 9 years old, he saved his father's life by pulling him out of a fire in their apartment and called 911". What relevance does this have whatsoever? What purpose does it have? How is it encyclopedic?. Quite frankly, it isn't. The present article is a lump of heavily skewed point-of-view trying to portray Martin in a certain way that aligns with the imagined "symbol" that Isaidnoway touts. No to mention that it serves no factual or academic purpose to put such details in an encyclopedia article. What is important is the shooting, and the aftermath and implications of that shooting. They are where all those involved derive their notability from, and also where the real historical consequences, if any, will come from. This is all that matters from encyclopedia's standpoint. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the example sentence you mentioned about Martin saving his father's life, I don't see any problem with it, except that maybe it should be prefaced with "according to...". It seems like a significant event in Martin's life. Perhaps it would help make your point better if you could find some written guidance in Wikipedia that you could share here that supports your points about what is not encyclopedic. —Bob K31416 (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My dear fellow, I have done. Please see all of the guidelines I've linked in the above conversations, whether it be WP:MEMORIAL, WP:NEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, &c. &c. If you haven't read my varied comments above, please don't disdain my thoughts for lack of "written guidance". RGloucester — ☎ 13:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you gave links without quotes from them, I'll try to give the quotes that you might be using. If instead you were using other quotes from those links, feel free to share them.

Re WP:MEMORIAL — "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." This does not apply to this case since Trayvon Martin satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements per the section WP:ONEEVENT as I quoted previously, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."

Re WP:NEWSPAPER — "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:" And then the section lists four items with explanations: 1. Journalism; 2. News reports; 3. Who's who; 4. A diary. If you think any of these items apply to this AfD case, please quote the item with its explanation and state why you think it applies.

Re WP:INDISCRIMINATE — "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Wikipedia articles should not be:" And then the section lists three items with explanations: 1. Summary-only descriptions of works; 2. Lyrics databases; 3. Excessive listings of statistics. Again, if you think any of these items apply to this case, please quote the item with its explanation and state why you think it applies. Thanks. —Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shan't get into circular arguments. I've very clearly stated, to-the-point, the exact items in comments above. I suggest you read them rather than request that I repeat myself again. The one thing I shall repeat, however, is that I and many other editors have refuted your idea that Mr Martin satisfies the notability requirements, for various reasons. We cannot take your opinion, nor mine, as gospel. This is a contested point. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with RGloucester, it looks like this was an ill-conceived AfD that has no basis in any policy or guideline. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to quote here the part of the policy or guideline that applies and I will reconsider. If anyone feels they have already given such a quote in this discussion, feel free to give the diff or time stamp for your message and I will look at it and perhaps copy the quote here for discussion. Thanks. —Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow, can you not read? I've explained my interpretation of the various guidelines numerous times, since the start of the AfD. I submit that my interpretation is just that: an interpretation. As is yours. This does not give you the right, dear fellow, to be saying such pointed things, even if veiled behind rather plain language. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss personal differences that you think we might have, you're invited to my talk page. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Martin is not notable, but the circustamces of his death and the trial for his case are, article should be moved or deleted, it is blatantly a violation of WP:1EVENT and is clearly a US bias, there are thousand of notable deaths in other parts of the world which have president speechs and so on, this does not refactorates the fact that he was not notable beyond his death event. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite an interesting point, and one which has been brought up before. While I'm not in favor of deleting content for the sake of balancing Wikipedia, one must think. If this fellow, this Mr Martin, was, let's say an openly effeminate man who was shot in Iraq on suspicion of being gay, would he ever receive his own article, besides perhaps a shooting article? Not at all. And it is unlikely, even if one were to create such an article, based on underground Arab media coverage, that many here would accept it as even slightly notable. I'm not saying it is even a remotely direct comparison, or that such a situation is even likely, but it is something to think about. One can't selectively apply standards. Again, merely food for thought. Not an argument, necessarily, for preserving or deleting this article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far Eduemoni and Martin451 have mentioned US bias as a reason that this article is in Wikipedia. I'd be interested in knowing which other editors feel that way. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read anyone else comment when I put my !vote here, but there is a huge US iconic status applied to his article, and he was probably a common boy, perhaps a violent one, but like I said before the only notable thing is his death circumstances, which are dubious, there is no clear consensus if there were racism, if Travyon was under drug influence and the public attention this fact brought, including the president speech related to him. In 2008 a brazilian young girl was killed by her own father, there was a lot of public outcry and every single Brazilian became aware of her death, the biggest attention to date, she received a lot of homage and a public speech by some political authorities, but is it worthy to have an article on her? She has just a girl, she could have been the person who could have changed the world, but she didn't, she was not an activist, should I start an article on her citing her background as a girl who used to suck upon a pacifier and would play with her barby dolls? This is completely different from Anne Frank, she became notable post mortem because not only her death circumstances, but also the circustamces of her life and also her diary. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. RGloucester — ☎ 13:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a violation of the memorial rules. We don't need this much information about his childhood. "Martin enjoyed sports video games, and washed cars, babysat and cut grass to earn his own money." Everything relevant about him is in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin already. A lot of the article just seems to be repeating things from there. Dream Focus 17:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re "This is clearly a violation of the memorial rules." — If you are referring to WP:MEMORIAL, I don't see the violation. —Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd summarize it in brief with the following, which is a base interpretation of the guideline on my part. Mr Martin doesn't meet the notability requirements, if 1E is taken into account, and if one believes his role was a minor one. This article attempts to memorialize this non-notable subject in ways that read like an obituary. "He was interested in x". "He did x". He liked x". These are trivialities that are not important from historical perspective, even more so because the subject isn't notable, other than for his death. I would say that his death is notable, but his person isn't. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the basis for our difference of opinion is the part of your remark, " ... if one believes his role was a minor one." Regarding Martin's role in the event that is the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, you think his role is minor and I think his role is major. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not his role was minor of major in the event, there is nothing of him notable outside the event. He did not survive to talk about it afterwards, or campaign, or even be arrested. His life before the event was not notable, and had little bearing on him being shot.Martin451 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any basis in a policy or guideline for the relevance of your remarks regarding notability outside the event. Before continuing, if you could quote the part of a policy or guideline that you are using, that would be helpful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the numerous and well articulated reasons given by Isaidnoway. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability only goes as far as this one event. WP:ONEEVENT most definetly applies. JOJ ^Hutton 20:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT — "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." —Bob K31416 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we've already established, dear fellow, the question of whether his role was a large one is subjective and up to interpretation. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in knowing which editors in addition to RGloucester have the opinion that Martin had a minor role in the event that is the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does insulting Fulton, Corey, Crump et. al. further your point exactly? Are you suggesting we question Angela Corey's bona fides?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that also according to the second paragraph of WP:ONEVENT, an individual's role in an event is considered large if there is a "large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." In the event that is the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, there is a large coverage of what Martin did that night that led up to him being shot, in addition to the obvious large coverage that he was the one who was shot. —Bob K31416 (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My dear, dear fellow…as has already been mentioned, if that coverage is not encyclopedic, than it violates the GNG's "presumed" caveat, rendering your point moot. I, and others, would say that most of that coverage is not significant from a historical perspective. This is a matter of interpretation. We are like the Supreme Court of the US here, we interpret laws and make rulings on them. I stated my opinion. You've stated yours. RGloucester — ☎ 13:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. WP:BLP1E applies here, but there's no reason that the background section of Martin in that article shouldn't be well written and comprehensive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

In order for WP:BLP1E to apply, the third condition there must be satisfied, "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented...". As the person being shot after a significant interaction with the shooter, I think that Trayvon Martin's role in the event that is the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, is substantial and well-documented. If you disagree, I would be interested in your thoughts. —Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading the wrong policy. That is for living persons. Please see WP:1E, which is structured differently. RGloucester — ☎ 02:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, those that sincerely wish to disagree would be wiser to form a new consensus on notability wikipolicies. There are tens of thousands of gun victims every year and that is just in the United States. There are hundreds of thousands of victims of violence just in the U.S. Those editors that are favoring keeping this article aren't changing anything about Trayvon Martin, they are really changing everything about what Wikipedia is and will be, an encyclopedic catalog of articles on every plaintiff/victim in every court case both civil and criminal. I have no personal objections to a wikipedia of that nature and content, I have several thousands of articles that I would appreciate seeing wikipedia add for crime victims but that is not current wikipolicy. We all have an obligation & duty as editors to realize that our contributions are affecting the entire encyclopedia. If the majority of us wish to add otherwise non-notable crime victim articles then the proper forum is on the relevant wikipolicies talk pages. Wikipedia should not become a place where exceptions to otherwise consensus policies are debated away from that policies talk page.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You use the phrase "crime victim" a couple of times in your comments and it's not clear whether you are talking about Martin or not. But just for the record, Martin was not a victim of a crime. His shooter was acquitted, therefore no crime was committed in his shooting death. Your proposal that it "would be wiser to form a new consensus on notability wikipolicies" seems to suggest that there is something wrong with this guideline (it's not a policy). Do you contend that this guideline should be changed to exclude notable topics of a specific nature, like; gun violence, victims of violence, civil/criminal trials of people accused of crimes, etc. Because I don't think there would be a consensus to change the guideline to exclude articles of a specific nature, regardless of what the topic is. For instance, if we flip that coin over, one could reasonably argue that we should change the guidelines to exclude articles about the perpetrators of violence. Why should we give any space in an encyclopedia to people like Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh. What have they ever done in their lives that was notable besides causing death and destruction? Who gives a rats ass about these type of people? That argument, of course, would fall flat on it's face, because editor's recognize that even though these people are scum (imo), they achieved significant attention from reliable sources, acquired notability and merited an article on WP.

Out of 3.4 million articles on en.wikipedia, the shooting article ranks #3143 in traffic. In July 2013, during the trial of the shooter, the shooting article had over 3.8 million page views alone. In comparison, Wikipedia's article on Bradley (Chelsea) Manning who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the espionage act, by releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public, only received 297,450 page views. I personally feel that Manning is a much more notable figure than Trayvon Martin will ever be, but yet the readers of Wikipedia feel different. In 11 days since the Martin article was forked off from the shooting article, it has received over 3500 page views. According to Google, the Trayvon Martin shooting ranked #9 in search queries for 2012. [1] and TIME Magazine compiled a list of people who mattered in 2012, and Trayvon Martin is on that list. Can I explain to you the phenomenon surrounding this 17 year old African-American from Florida who never did a notable thing in his life, besides dying. No, I can't, but to ignore that he has received significant attention in reliable sources and acquired notability, seems to go against Wikipedia guidelines. If your desire is to see less articles of this nature, then I would think the proper venue would be to change the laws in this country and around the world to ensure that topics like this never have a chance to see the light of day.— Isaidnoway (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, people are searching for Trayvon Martin because of the shooting, correct? They would not be searching for him if there was no shooting, right? Your use of Bin Laden or McVeigh is a total nonsense. Both of them were involved in multiple events. Bin Laden was the leader of a major terrorist organization, and planned and carried out many attacks. McVeigh is at least notable for the bombing, and also for the trial and planning of that bombing, among other things. Martin never did ANYTHING. He was shot. He did not plan anything. He was not an activist or a terrorist mastermind. All he did was die. You statement that there is a "phenomenon" is an opinion. "Change the laws in this country" demonstrates that you are acting based on personal opinions, and trying to push a PoV. People search for all sorts of things that we do not have articles on. If we had an article on everything that was searched for by everyone, God knows what sort of diabolical compendium this would become. There is nothing about Martin that is notable outside of the context of the shooting, and in-context information should be included in the shooting article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have completely misunderstood my comments above and that's perfectly understandable. But to now engage in an overly dramatic flair by asking rhetorical questions that you or I will never know the answer to, seems a bit of stretch, don't you think? Whatever answer you or I think is right in response to your questions would be nothing short of conjecture and assumptions on our part, would it not? Sure, you can cherry pick through my comments in an effort to falsely portray my motives in arguing for inclusion of this biographical entry of a notable person of interest, but you do realize that the value I place on your analytical cherry picking skills is zero, right? And for a teenager that never did ANYTHING, got shot, did not plan anything, was not an activist or terrorist mastermind and all he did was die, sure did receive a significant amount of national and international coverage, and yeah I know, there was a shooting.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It ought to be obvious that BLP1E cannot apply, and the extraordinary attention given the individual by national media demonstrates the subject's notability and enduring significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can 1E not apply? We are not referring to BLP1E, which is for living persons, if that is what you are referring to. We are referring to WP:1E. Can you prove that the attention provided to Martin is encyclopedic? Useful from a historical perspective? Neutral in point-of-view? Does it derive from anything but the shooting? How can "enduring significance" be demonstrated so near to the event? Would one not have to wait years to see whether such claims are true? Must we not need historical distance to be even close to objective? RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of questions you ask in lieu of advancing arguments is a very strong indication that you cannot sustain your burden of proof here. And the text of 1E strongly indicates notability here: it cites the independent Rodney King article, whose subject's role in an important event corresponds quite exactly to Trayvon Martin's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fight with words, dear fellow, but I shan't flinch. Al shall merely state that any comparison to Rodney King is inappropriate. Rodney King is not notable for only one event. After that event, he made many other notable actions with significant media coverage. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take note that Rodney King does not have two articles. Beating of Rodney King is a redirect. Rodney King riots exists, but that's totally different. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything useful should be merged to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. This subject differs from some mentioned above such as George Zimmerman and Rodney King because they became notable for a number of events, where as the only notability Trayvon has stems from his unfortunate death.LM2000 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vojtěch Huser

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

Insufficient notability for WP:Academic; article created and maintained by apparently COI editor whose only other substantial contributions are to Trialome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the COI discussion is at WP:COIN#Vojtěch Huser. Trialome is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trialome. I should also correct "whose only other substantial contributions" to "the majority of whose contributions" above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable academic whose article was pretty obviously created for promotional purposes by Sakaton, who has thus far avoided clarifying or acknowledging the clear conflict of interest here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 01:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- *ahem* "clarifying [...] the clear COI". Can you say that? Is that a contradiction? Lesion (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record is too slim for WP:PROF#C1 and there appears to be little else. Academics at this early stage of their career usually do not pass WP:PROF and this one apperas not to be an exception. A clear case of WP:TOOSOON, made worse by the COI problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- per previous comments, notability + COI concerns. Lesion (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Birdsall

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. PROD was contested without any explanation. JMHamo (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable football fails both the guidelines above. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL RRD13 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quintuple-DES

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

Looks like somebody's private theory: unless my Google-fu fails me, no GScholar hits and only Google/DDG hit is this very page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources can be found. No cryptographer would ever design this, even an amateur like me can point holes in the idea -- the real cryptographic strength still at most 2¹¹² like Triple-DES, despite 280-bit key, due to meet-in-the-middle attack; DES's small 64-bit block size is increasingly a problem with today's multi-terabyte storage devices and 10Gbit network interfaces. Also factual errors, DES hasn't "survived the test-of-time", there's a faster-than-brute-force attack [2]. -- intgr [talk] 10:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Independently of the technical merits (or otherwise) of the idea, the lead sentence (with my emphasis) is "The concept is introduced here of extending Triple-DES to five keys ...". Ie it is original research, and Wikipedia is not the place for "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Original Research. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Ravia

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

As noted on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Jitendra Ravia this person does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Previously Proposed for deletion but contested. Discussion previously opened on Talk:Jitendra Ravia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jitenra Ravia, which was basically copy-and-pasted into Jitendra Ravia by the submitter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any independent sources that say that this person is a journalist. --regentspark (comment) 21:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Stfg (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Subject's homepage says "I have a strong interest in Internet based marketing." See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable independant sources found in searches from {{find sources}}. (No results in any except Google general search.) Has issues with WP:V in addition to WP:GNG, as no reliable secondary sources exist. Rain City 471 17:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: All the "references" in the article appear to be self-published/affiliated sources. Rain City 471 16:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of My-HiMe Child and Elements

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

This does not establish notability independent of My-HiME through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete We must keep this this is like the 42 of wikipedia! It is all so clear to me now. Or if you want to delete this based of of some boring accurate policies that's fine too I guess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a collection of dictionary definitions or indiscriminate information, and that's what these glossary articles are. They should all be moved on to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure unsourced fancruft. 'Nuff said. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gudon

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into List of Return of Ultraman monsters, and then consider that article for deletion as well... Ansh6 6 6 04:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (state) @ 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Created by a banned sockpuppet, this article does not establish notability and never will. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered by independent reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Souk Grande Mall Chennai

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

fails WP:ORG. no indepth coverage, just small mentions in gnews eg a cinema opening there. [3]. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (post) @ 21:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone got the Tamil name handy? Its a fairly significant-sized project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not necessary, malls in Chennai are more likely to be covered by The Hindu and The Times of India than by Dinamalar or Dinathanthi, but it transliterates to 'கோல்ட் சூக் கிராண்டே மால்" or "கோல்ட் சூக் கிராண்ட் மால்" (removing the accented e from grande). e.g. compare coverage for Ampa Skywalk (அம்பா ஸ்கைவாக்). —SpacemanSpiff 09:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone explain the meaning of 8,00,000 sq ft? (in the article, entered in the article as given in the source). If it means 800,000 sq ft, the mall is unlikely to be notable ;if it means 8,000,000 , irt probably is or will be. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 16 September 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, buff bills 7701 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue - RFD or RM is more appropriate. Wrong venue - RFD or RM is more appropriate (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Griffey

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

I'm not quite sure AfD is the right venue here, but RM and RfD aren't quite right either. I propose Ken Griffey, Jr. is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Ken Griffey and that, like with Cal Ripken, the base name should redirect to the more famous Jr. with a hatnote to the Sr. This makes the dab unnecessary per WP:TWODABS, hence I'm asking that it be deleted. Ok, well, really just redirected. Last month, Jr. had over 70,000 views, compared to just 14,000 for his father. Jr. also dominates results for "ken griffey" -wikipedia, as well as those in Google Books. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with the nominator's argument, particularly given precedent in the article on Cal Ripken. I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as it is with the Ripkens -- Griffey Sr. was a fairly prominent player, whereas Ripken Sr. was a manager -- but Junior is definitely the primary topic in both cases, and the nominator supplies good evidence to support that. So, yes, redirect to Ken Griffey, Jr.. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:17, 18 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the wrong venue for this. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only other formal venue I could think of is RfD, if I did the redirecting myself and then basically asked to have the decision endorsed. I suppose that's one way I could've done it. I just thought this might be controversial (maybe not) and should be discussed. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Territories in The Pendragon Adventure

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

This is a list of overly in-depth in-universe content without any sources for establishing notability. The plot sections for the novels should be enough without this accompanying them. TTN (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Intricate, overly-detailed, in-universe trivia like this belongs on Wikia. It could be merged into the book series, but I'm not sure that I see the point. Wikipedia isn't here to detail every landmark in a fictional world. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doragoris

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman Ace through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Redirect or merge into the appropriate article (Ultra Monsters, I suppose?) is also acceptable, but I don't think many people are going to be searching for an antagonist that appeared in two episodes. As I've said before, I doubt that people are searching for individual Scooby Doo or Star Trek villains, and I doubt they're searching for this, either. This sort of excessive detail is more suited to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdul Rahim Al Attar Tower

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

fails GNG, per lack of RS. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:20, 1 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there's some type of notability guideline specifically for buildings that I'm not seeing, the subject doesn't appear to have any reliable sources showing notability; fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some helpful link about this owner of this property in Dubai

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/-we-thought-we-d-get-rich-quick--443389.html

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/housing-property/vue-de-lac-towers-towering-trouble-in-dubai-1.785450

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/housing-property/jlt-owners-still-waiting-for-homes-promised-in-2007-1.526478

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=187744&page=2

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/investors-file-case-with-rera-over-dubai-project-delays-11559.html

http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-6698-disgruntled-investors-storm-rera-office/

http://www.ameinfo.com/95623.html

http://www.ameinfo.com/75118.html

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?section=theuae&xfile=data/theuae/2011/january/theuae_january199.xml

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/dubai-developer-wants-18-5m-from-investors-8928.html

Also featured on a British broadcast (ITV 1 Channel) on a documentary called: Homes from Hell.

Relevants:

http://www.emirates247.com/crime/local/dh40-million-scam-surfaces-in-dubai-2013-02-24-1.496141

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/cash-is-king-in-dubai-s-real-estate-market-490438.html#.USqeJo7C60s

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/more-than-6-000-families-hit-in-dubai-s-biggest-scam-1.1181130

http://gulfnews.com/about-gulf-news/al-nisr-portfolio/xpress/news/disgruntled-sunfeast-investors-in-uae-demand-refund-1.1184144

http://williamkelly.webs.com/

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/new-hope-for-dubai-investors-on-stalled-projects-1.1230155 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.217.215 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago B. Villafania

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

Article blatantly violates WP:SOAP, also does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE NoyPiOka (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was called "Pangasinan's leading poet"[4] by Cirilo F. Bautista. Another source said "Pangasinan poetic tradition has seen rebirth in the verses of Mr. Santiago Villafania".[5] He has won an award[6] and nominated for the national book award[7]. Since this is a third world country we should be open to WP:SYSTEMIC and not try to hold too tight a reign of rules (they probably don't have the same tradition of book reviewing we expect to meet CREATIVE #3). Clearly a leading figure in the arts within the context of Pangasinan "poetic tradition". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep. malagilion (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom's findings. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author and frequent contributor to the article is no other than the subject of the article himself. See his message on my talk page. This is a self-gratification page. We don't allow this on wikipedia. NoyPiOka (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. The fact that this Malagilion guy responded on nominator's talk page AND voted Keep here indicates a conflict of interest. The traffic coming out of the anon that added much meat here is also heaping suspicion on them and Malagilion. There's a Tagalog slang term for this: pagbubuhat ng sariling bangko. It means lifting your own bench, but it is actually a subject talking about their own achievements. Unfortunately, such is the case here. The article itself has no proper BLP format. A rewrite could have been possible, but Malagilion's response on nom's talkpage simply indicates arrogance on his part. I have very little patience for such people and I've come across the likes of them before. Nuke this article from orbit. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I merely supplied the correct info. Asking the reason why is it being deleted is a mere question, Eaglestorm. How can that be arrogance? Since I was informed that it's for deletion. pagbubuhat ng sariling bangko? there's no need for me to do that ;) malagilion (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for me to do that. See WP:YOURSELF, it says "Self-created articles are often listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. Beware that third-party comments may be most uncomplimentary." Unfortunately you can't stop such comments, but you can ignore them otherwise it could encourage more uncomplimentary comments. The wise choice is to not saying anything at all. And not create an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I may add as well, supplying "correct info" about yourself still falls under COI and your response is nothing more than an act of desperation. You may possibly have some popularity in a number of literary circles Mr Villafania, but as a Wikipedian, you're wanting and you don't even know it. Thanks for the "denial" of your arrogant declarations, makes you more of a sarcastic fool than things may seem. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. now, who is arrogant here, Eaglestorm? i said i supplied the correct info, right? pls. read between the lines. i have no idea about COI. it's a pity you are hiding in a megalomaniac pseudonym. sayang, i have no option to know your real name. it would have been fun making your name famous. i am just awaiting deletion for the entry. so don't brag about your prowess. malagilion (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow, nice one with the deflection comeback and the highfaluting words right there. Sorry, but this discussion is not about me, its about you and your losing fight to save the article. Oh and do you think culling much of the info in the article works because you're awaiting its deletion? It just made things much worse, so thanks for shooting yourself in the foot by not even reading up on WP policies against self-promotion. The fact you're working on Anacbanua using "permission" from your friends is still COI... and Aguinaldo International School Manila? From the way things look, it seems you're connected to that school (an employee perhaps?), and that is another COI black mark on your record. You lament about "No option" to know my real name... boohoo, I see what game you're trying to play, so don't even try. This is my last response on the matter. If you do even reply to this, Sonny, well, baliw ka na talaga (you've really lost your mind). To the nominator, sorry to be on an NPA roll here, but this article is one of the worst examples of self-gratification I've ever seen in Wikipedia. It's actually better off in another wiki I know that pays lip service to NPOV. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglestorm, I might gently point out that you admitted elsewhere on Wikipedia that you know Malagilion as an alum at your school, and I think technically that makes you also a WP:COI in this AfD. Not a serious problem but I think you should probably continue any disputes with Malagilion outside Wikipedia and the closing admin should be aware. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I have no disputes with the subject but the fact he's trying to fight off AFD is just stupid. Yes, he's known at my alma mater, but your claims of me having COI in this AFD is rather baseless. Don't play into his hands. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Green Cardamom mostly. Even a blatant COI isn't really relevant to notability. A few editors probably need to be told to refrain from editing the article and the article itself needs work (whichever version you use as a base), but those are WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems. At the end of the day, GC's analysis is convincing. It's perhaps "niche" notability, but that's enough for me. Stalwart111 23:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs major cleanup - The article has serious COI issues, which should be addressed as soon as possible, but nevertheless the sources presented earlier in this discussion suggest that the subject is of note. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. The COI conflict is not relevant to the notability discussion. However, all editors with COI regarding this topic should refrain from further edits to the article. Factchecker25 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of video game console emulators. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PSXeven

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

This program does not establish notability through the inclusion of reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of primary details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of video game console emulators. I don't see any reliable sources and can't establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as above. The article itself says "...with very few people aware of the project's existence". Notability requires enough people to be aware of it so that one of them writes a source we can cite. W Nowicki (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Starbucks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and Bucks Cafe

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

This cafe has been briefly mentioned in a couple of newspaper articles in 2010, which doesn't amount to "significant coverage", thus failing notability. Gabi S. (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is quite sparse. Non-notable. -- Gabi S. (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage by the U.S. newspaper is actually pretty significant, but there isn't really enough coverage besides that. Ibadibam (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "Parodies and infringements" section of Starbucks. Coverage is significant, but not plentiful enough to warrant a separate article. Ibadibam (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ibadibam. Note the coverage of fake Apple Stores at Apple Store#Imitations. Yeah, a few newspapers have noted that there's a spoof Starbucks. Not a big deal, not to the point where a standalone article is warranted. --BDD (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tche Tche

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

Fails notability Gabi S. (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The source cited in the article notes that it is a popular chain frequented by youth in Ramallah. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources for this claim? -- Gabi S. (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cited in the article. You can find them by clicking through in the references section. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this press release via a Google news archive search for the machine-translation into Arabic. Can't offer any independent WP:RS, though I suspect they may be out there if we had an Arabic speaker involved. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd checked both cafe and resto in English, prior to the Arabic. Found nothing too helpful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the description of this by the France-Israel Chamber of Commerce as "une des principales chaînes de cafés-restaurants de la région" was pretty helpful. That source seems reliable, and is independent as this chain is neither French nor Israeli. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's clear that all we have is a brief mentioning in a Jerusalem Post article from 2010, which is also credited as the source of the French article above. If this doesn't fail WP:NTEMP I don't know what does. -- Gabi S. (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible for an article to fail WP:NTEMP -that section just says that notability is not temporary:once notable, forever notable. Perhaps you referred to another bit of policy? --cyclopia ^speak! 14:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read closely: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." This cafe was mentioned briefly in a single article from 2010 and never since. So maybe it was "notable" for 15 minutes in 2010. Now we can reassess the evidence of notability, and find out that it is not really worthy of having an article on it. -- Gabi S. (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you wanted to refer to another policy. You meant it is failing WP:BLP1E, linked in NTEMP just to clarify the issue of single events and persons. Problem is, this is a cafe, not a living person, so BLP1E does not apply. Again, if it was notable in 2010, it is notable forever, that is what WP:NTEMP is about. I don't know yet if it is notable or not, but that sources are old is an irrelevant issue when dealing with notability. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it notable in 2010? I don't think so. It was mentioned briefly in a newspaper article. That's not notability. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reviewed in lots of travel books (cfr. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Tche+Tche%22#q=%22Tche+Tche%22+cafe&safe=off&tbm=bks ), passes WP:GNG. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's relevant. Notability of a restaurant or cafe is more than a mere mention in travel books. A notable place is a place where well-known people dine, a place that is reviewed in food magazines, with a professional chef or maybe a famous owner. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what is required by our general notability guidelines. Note that in the context of WP editing, notability has a definite technical meaning. Coverage by reliable secondary sources is what defines notability, in general, for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is lots of such coverage. That's all we need, no more, no less. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." When I see a Wikipedia article about a cafe that no one knows, that was never reviewed in food magazines, that was only once mentioned in the press, with no professional chef or a famous owner, my common sense says delete it. -- Gabi S. (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I see something covered in multiple reliable sources, my common sense says keep it. This cafe has been reviewed in more than a half dozen books, for example, which makes it quite notable, according to both our guidelines and my own common sense. Guess what? Common sense ain't so common after all. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a chain of restaurants, not a single one as you (Gabi S.) seem to be implying, and newspapers are not the only, and not the best, reliable sources. And what makes you think that this chain doesn't have professional chefs? Is the food prepared by unpaid amateurs? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We need to look at the content as well as the quantity of coverage in reliable sources. One of the best-respected newspapers in a country where this chain doesn't even have any branches describes it as one of the leading chains of cafes and restaurants in the Middle East. I fail to understand what kind of common sense would not recognise that as notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Yes, it's a chain indeed. Their website is down, by the way. But what makes this chain notable? Do we have a Wikipedia article about every chain of cafes in the world? No, we don't. It is notable only if it has some significant coverage in neutral sources, which happens if you have (for example) a famous chef. They surely have a professional chef, and of course they are mentioned in tourist guides, like every restaurant and every hotel in Jordan. That's not enough to make it notable. See The Four Seasons Restaurant or Le Dôme Café for examples of notable cafes. -- Gabi S. (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your support for deletion is implicit in the nomination, so there is no need for a further bolded "delete". Please reply to the substance of what I write, i.e. that The Jerusalem Post described this as one of the leading chains of cafes and restaurants in the Middle East. That kind of reliably sourced desription can't be found for every chain of cafes in the world or every restaurant and every hotel in Jordan, so your analogies don't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gabi, did you seriously say that every restaurant and every hotel in Jordan, as you said, is mentioned in several international guides? Because I highly doubt it is true. --cyclopia ^speak! 17:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Nicole Gilbert

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

This article was PRODed and derPRODED some time back. I have done a fresh search for reliable sources but I can't find any Ghits that go beyond blogs, listings, YouTube, and download sites. Fails WP:Musicbio. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not pass the general notability guideline as the only sources I was able to find are just slight mentions in otherwise unrelated articles. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:02, 31 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the very extensive article in Echelon Magazine cited? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The source cited by Candleabracadabra is probably up to GNG standards, but if we can't find anything else like it, that's a red flag. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Women_Poets_International#Woman_Scream_International_Poetry_Festival. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Scream International Poetry Festival

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

Non-notable organization lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article is supported by press releases. Appears to fail WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving a comment on both of these in case other editors don't see the other one, but this is related to Women Poets International, as they organize the event as a whole. I'm finding sources, but I'm leaning towards a merge of the two articles together. In any case, some of the sources aren't press releases- the editor sort of misunderstood the term in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Women_Poets_International#Woman_Scream_International_Poetry_Festival. The coverage for both this and the organization are light, but there's just enough to where I can say that it could be a weak keep for both of them. In any case, I merged the pertinent data into the main article, so this can redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Tokyogirl ... this "festival" is not notable on its own. The org that runs it is barely notable ES &L 19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hook horror

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

This does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Not independently notable. Deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some (edited per request) ~~fanboy~~ site run by people who do not have their primary focus that of creating an encyclopedia and that would love this kind of trivia. As for Wikipedia, there are only primary sources attesting to its existence within the game, no third party coverage to indicate that anyone thinks its worthy of coverage - Failing WP:GNG means delete redirect or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target article. The suggested target article seems to also suffer from bloating based on primary sourced material and so a merge may simply be shuffling the shit from one side of the stall to another and not actually improving the encyclopedia in any way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

let's keep personal, or even broad-stroke, name calling like "fan boy" to a minimum. You would not want to be accused of pushing a point of view here. Web Warlock (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I AM pushing a POV, one that is based on that premise that the intent of the pillars should be followed and that Wikipedia be an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for a fansite.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that in some parts of the Internet referring to someone as a "fanboy" is considered a personal attack. I don't think it quite rises to that here but it's not exactly polite, you might want to be careful about using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. (Also I'm pretty sure this is already on D&DWiki and I'm totally sure D&DWiki is treated as "NOPE" by most roleplayers.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the creature was one of the few that had an action figure made and was featured on the D&D cartoon. I am also certain that I can find more data on it as well. Web Warlock (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added three independent sources. Edited article. Will add more soon. Web Warlock (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't IMDB user edited? I would assume that would invalidate it. Stating that it appeared in primary material cannot be said to establish independent notability anyway. The same goes for the sticker book. I assume the "Open Gamming License" part isn't actually meant to establish notability, but it wouldn't do anything in either case. TTN (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I can do in a handful of minutes on my phone. I'd wager that once I sat down to do the real research I would discover a lot more. Web Warlock (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sticker book was most certainly done under an official license and not in any independent manner, as was the figurine. A mere listing in IMDB is not sufficient to establish notability for a film listed there, let alone for the passing appearance of a critter in an episode and as far as I can tell, the IMDB doesnt even mention the Hook Horror. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Of the sources given in the article, there is precisely two, the last two, that are not primary sources; of those, one is IMDB saying 'this appeared in this episode' (and, being IMDB, is of questionable reliability) and the other is 'this is a coloring book that had this monster in it'. There is precisely zero out-of-universe notability here; merging and redirecting to the list is appropriate because as part of the group there is a smidge of notability and redirects are cheap, but independently there is nothing for an article here.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to an appropriate article (though would it be List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters? It appeared in others as well). The subject has no reliable third-party sources to establish any notability. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Furthermore, note that references 1 and 12 are not owned by TSR or Wizards, thus meeting the GNG even if we assume for the sake of argument that neither TSR nor WotC sources are independent (I maintain that at most one may be non-independent). Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fact is, the bar is being set no higher than any other project- WP:Pokémon test - all articles are expected to have independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner. There is no exception for D&D products, the ITICCDMPRIPR exception exists only in your mind. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being "owned" by TSR or Wizards is not the definition of independent coverage, and Games Workshop's agreement with TSR certainly dismisses any arguments that White Dwarf could be considered an independent source for their products. Reference 12, the coloring book, has zero significant coverage. Not a single reference comes close to satisfying WP:GNG, and an article requires several. - Aoidh (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and the White Dwarf source is not about the creature in any real world discussion, it is the original appearance; and so White Dwarf as the creators are clearly not independent. And the coloring book while published by Macdonald Purnell Books and not TSR/WOTC directly, it is done under an official licensee relationship, ie, also not independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gray render

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

This creature does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Redirect or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters would also be acceptable, but I think the best thing to do is just delete the page. Wikia is a better place for this sort of thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia, but it fails WP:GNG - the sources are only the creator. The article also talks about the Pathfinder critter of the same name sourced to a primary source for the Pathfinder critter. But, either 1) the Pathfinder source is talking about something other than what the lead says this article is about "a critter from D&D" and it is an WP:OR violation to include it; or 2) if our article is about "gray render is a fictional critter used in D&D and its clones", then we have only primary sources. With failure of GNG, the options are delete or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the only way they could possibly be considered "separate" companies is if you completely ignore the fact that one was bought out by the other and all its related intellectual property rights, and one is officially licensed producer of content. the bar is no higher here than it is for WP:Pokémon test. Your ITICCDMPRIPR position is not one that is supported by any rational reading or application of WP:GNG -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... Except that the license is free and permissive; Paizo is no more related to TSR/Wizards/Hasboro than any particular software developer using the GNU Public License is affiliated with the Free Software Foundation. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When publishing The Dragon, they were under the non-free and non-open official license procedures. When publishing Pathfinder content, they are NOT publishing D&D content - they are publishing Pathfinder D20 content and so are NOT producing content about the subject of the article: the D&D Critter. Or if the subject is not D&D Grey Render but rather Grey Render critter from D&D and its clone games then Piazo is as much completely primary as WotC. And in any manner, as game guides, there is nothing actually about the subject of the article, merely "how to use it in a game". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Alovert

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

Unsourced article. Two of the three references are dead links and the third is irrelevant to the article. Most references of her on other websites also lead to dead links, and there are no mentions of her for a few years now, and her personal website seems to have not been renewed. There are a few mentions of her scamming students out of their money, which could explain that. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 10:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Found a dead link, deleted a dead link, added a new link. Two decent sources, but not enough. Unless more can be found. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur's Gold

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

Non-notable game by a non-notable publisher. It should also be noted that the creator vandalised the article for a similar game. There are also no sources. Benboy00 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:NVG. Ansh6 6 6 20:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Very weak keep per sources below (some that I found). I'm not sure it passes the bar, but others seem to think so, and I'll defer to their judgment. Ansh6 6 6 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You wouldn't know it from this horrible article, but there are a few reviews that show up quickly and easily on a basic Google search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list some of these reviews? That way we can know if any of the reviews are from reliable sources and they can be added to the article.--64.229.165.126 (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found [8] and [9] on the first page of Google. I don't know, it still doesn't seem to be good enough to me but maybe it is. Ansh6 6 6 03:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found only one usable source when I searched, which was a brief article from PC Gamer. I did see some reviews out there, but they were from various gaming blogs, none of which are of the type that are seen as so reliable that they'd be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. The problem with the sites is that although some of them are very popular, popularity doesn't equate out to being a usable source. I have no problem with incubation, although I hesitate at the original editor vandalizing other articles. I'd probably recommend another user incubate at this time if anyone's interested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was really weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Arthur%27s_World&diff=570934741&oldid=566323364 . Benboy00 (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was basically copying the contents of this article currently over the article of a similarly-titled game but completely separate (except for possibly inspiration) game. Ansh6 6 6 19:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, but you would expect that even a new user would realise that thats totally unacceptable. Benboy00 (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rock Paper Shotgun is reliable enough for Wikipedia per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. With the PC Gamer article that looks to be enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Grantsmanship Center

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

I do not believe that this organisation meets notability requirements. The references fall into a few different categories: primary sources , including the official website for the organisation and press released about upcoming workshops; short mentions in local papers (two or three of these - it's hard to tell what's a press release sometimes) ; and the founder's obituary in LA Times. There appears to be a certain amount of conflict of interest for the main editors of the article, as well. bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I could find nothing written ABOUT this center, except the founder's obit (which does make him and his organization sound significant, but obits do that, and in any case it is the only source providing significant coverage). I found lots of hits on a Google News search, but all of them are simply announcements that a local workshop will be held. The same is true of the numerous references at the article: they announce a workshop while parroting the organization's description of itself. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of articles written ABOUT The Grantsmanship Center in the references section. Some are behind a pay wall.--SenorPower (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, there are currently 33 references in the article. One of these (which I cannot access at the moment) appears to be a non-trivial mention in an independent publication - that's this one. The few other references that are independent of the GC itself are trivial mentions in local newspapers, and the majority of the refs are still announcements of workshops, all of which include the organization's own description of itself, and so this does not come close to showing notability, unfortunately. However, Norton J. Kiritz may be notable, based on this, this possibly this (which I cannot access). Since notability is not inherited, Kiritz' potential notability does not mean that TGC is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 13:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well established organization whose workshops are noted in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good! If there are sources that I failed to find, that's excellent - please add them? There is very little there at present that's independent other than small local press. --bonadea contributions talk 05:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most famous organization of its sort. For any organization like this, most of the material will intrinsically be mere notices, but that doesn't rule out that some of them are substantial. Thje NYT articles talks substantially about the person and the center, and provides the necessary evidence. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket summit

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

There doesn't seem to be much in-depth, independent coverage of this conference. Google News provided five results:

[10] has a sentence about the summit
[11] news aggregator linking to [12] which is a republished press release [13]
[14] is just a brief mention
[15] press release
[16] press release —rybec 17:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked at length, and as per the nominator, can only find press releases and other primary sources, along with those two brief, incidental mentions which don't constitute extensive reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the aforementioned sources are definitely not sufficient coverage for WP:GNG, but I was able to dig up some coverage of the conference, albeit through a news service called "Ticket News" (e.g. [17], [18], [19]). The service is specific to ticketing-related business though, I'm not sure this considered a source with broad readership, but I wanted to throw these out there to see what others thought. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WKID 96.7 FM

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

Low-powered Part 15 radio station with no particularly strong evidence of non-local and/or non-temporary notability. (The claim that it's "known as the world’s only kid owned and operated FM radio station", for starters, is simply not verifiable anywhere besides the station's own promotional slogan, and even if it was true at one time it may not be now.) The article, furthermore, has been flagged as "appears to be written like an advertisement" since 2011, with virtually no discernible improvement — although it's not quite blatantly promotional enough to trigger my speedy reflex, it is fairly obvious that the article's core intention was to increase awareness of the topic outside of its own local market rather than to document a topic whose notability had already been properly established. The article does "cite" three sources, for example, but two of them are dead and unretrievable and the third is not sufficient to get the station past WP:GNG by itself. Wikipedia's rule for the notability of radio stations is that a station is not entitled to a presumption of notability unless it has a license from the relevant broadcasting regulator (the FCC in this case) — an unlicensed station can still become notable enough for inclusion if its sourcing and notability claim are really solid (we do, for example, have some very good, very well-sourced articles about pirate radio stations), but this article has not met that standard. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if someone can demonstrate that the article is salvageable with properly referenced content improvements, but in its current form it's a pretty clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Part 15 stations are non-notable per WP:NMEDIA. For the record, the "real" WKID is an FCC licensed station in Vevay, Indiana. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read nothing in WP:NMEDIA that says that Part 15 stations are always non-notable, only that they are less likely to be so. I agree with Bearcat's assessment of the current article, but I was able to dig up a number of sources that do provide some content on the radio station's history. The Tampa Bay Times article (maybe not the same one the was a deadlink on the article) is here, and provides pretty decent coverage on the station's history and impact even as far away as Germany, which would be appropriate to include in this article. This article from Digital Journal is a bit more anecdotal, but does provide useful info about its budget and call-in policy. This press release from another station in Long Island is obviously less reliable, but it does state that they reached out to WKID for advice about how to get started on their own station run by kids. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From WP:NMEDIA: "Pirate broadcasters, while not presumed notable, can have notability conferred on them by meeting WP:CORP standards." WKID 96.7 FM and all Part 15 stations are considered pirates regardless of the FCC rules. Most, if not all, part 15's get a visit from the FCC and are shut down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was all ready to vote delete, and the article needs trimming, but there is a case for bare notability here, its had some press coverage from legitimate news sites about being a kid-run radio station.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Taylor

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

Baseball player in the 19th century. The general rule is that one must make it to the majors to be deemed notable enough for an article. But Taylor had quite a lengthy minor league career, which is why I'm putting it in AFD. I myself lean towards delete, but others may disagree. Fryedk (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Never played in the majors.. lengthy minor league career doesn't cut it. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like an exception to the rule. Played a part in Milwaukee's rise, and was also a manager, albeit minor league as well. Likely a rather well known player at the time within baseball circles. 11kowrom 03:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - seems to have been an important figure in the early days of baseball, and looks notable. I would suggest moving to Wally Taylor (baseball) and turning Wally Taylor into a dab page, as there is also Wally Taylor (footballer). Giant Snowman 14:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While we shouldn't have an article for every minor league player, there are articles for some, like Steve Chilcott and Brien Taylor. Since one of the minor leagues this player played in was the precursor to the American League, and the team he played an important role for is one of the teams that survived the transition to becoming a major league – they're the Orioles now – I think he's just notable enough to avoid falling under the ordinary minor leaguer guideline. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Virginias

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

Are these 2 states together an important division of the United States?? This article implies that they are simply because of their names. I mean, what if West Virginia were called Charleston State or something like that?? Would this still be an important division of the country?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's more than just the name, of course, since these two states were one state until the Civil War. And the GBooks, Gnews, and GScholar links above show a substantial number of works treating "The Virginias" as a unit for various purposes. On the other hand, there's only a very small number of incoming links from other articles, implying that the region is not mentioned, as such, in very many other Wikipedia articles. Not as obviously cohesive as The Dakotas and The Carolinas, but perhaps still worthy of a page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I confess I wasn't really aware of "The Virginias" as a significant regional division, but I found a number of books defining it exactly that way. For example, The Virginias: A Mining, Industrial and Scientific Journal, Golfing the Virginias, Hikes in the Virginias: Virginia, West Virginia and more.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to consist entirely of unreferenced original research on what a hypothetical unified Virginia would look like today. Maybe redirect to Virginia in the American Civil War, but there simply isn't much to say here. Some industries may bunch together Virginia and West Virginia due to their proximity. So what? --BDD (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OR should be deleted, but that doesn't mean there's nothing else to say. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact the article isn't as well developed as even the Dakotas is an argument it should be expanded, not deleted. If it turns out there really isn't much to say, there's no problem keeping it as a stub. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hibriten High School Band

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

I don't believe the band is notable. The list of "prominent" former members is full of non-notable musicians and reads like a list of former members of pretty much every other high school band in the country. Jemiller226 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails music notability. Should really be an A7 Speedy Delete, but now that its AfD, might as well go through the process (although I recall there being a guideline on that, but cant find it atm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benboy00 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is sourced to Hibriten High School. The school article curiously doesn't mention it but it is a shambles of an article. Outright deletion would hamper a merge for GFDL reasons. WP:BEFORE #C.4 applies - look for an alternative before deleting. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now boldly merged the sourced bits so suggest now a redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Morgan (Songwriter)

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

Per WP:BLP this is not a notable songwriter. The information contained within is not sourced. The only things which are sourced (and that is improperly sourced) is several of his writing credits. Yet this is incorrectly done as the credits for "Boomerang" list 'Morgan Jackson' not 'Jackson Morgan'. The main contributing editor is one Jacksolm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is remarkably similar to the name of the songwriter in question suggesting this maybe the author editing an article about himself. Either way not a notable songwriter by WP:GNG / WP:BLP / WP:NMUSIC → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The credit for "Boomerang" is appropriately his; I looked it up at the ASCAP database and "MORGAN JACKSON LEE" is credited (on a database that lists the singer as "SCHERZINGER NICOLE", so it is a last-name-first listing.) Whether being one of five writers on a song that reached a chart is enough notability is not a question that I am answering at this point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at column browser (View > Show Column Browser > Music > Pop > Nicole Scherzinger > Boomerang) in iTunes or if you purchased the single (and clicked view info), the songwriter in question is credited as Morgan Jackson. Someone from Interscope records tweeted me the the single sleeve for the CD-R that was sent to the media/radio and that also says Morgan Jackson (I'm not able to presently access this but as soon as I can, I'll post a link to it). I'm more inclined to believe the embedded digital credits that come automatically signed with the single and the singler liner than Ascap or BMI, which have in the past been shown to sometimes include errors/missing writers or legal names/alternative names. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the only other Morgan Jackson or Jackson Morgan that appears in the ASCAP or BMI databases that does not appear to be this guy is a "JACKSON MORGAN A" over at BMI, who has zero works credited to him, and given that "JACKSON MORGAN LEE" is also listed as collaborating with Boomerang's "MURCIA DANIEL" on the ASCAP listing of the Pitbull recording "Everybody Fucks", it seems likelier to me that the iTunes listing is in error. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if iTunes is in error since the label embed the credits when they request iTunes to make the song available for purchase. Additionally Ascap/BMI is known to use legal names and variations of names. For example half of the time Lady Gaga is credited under her legal name Steffani Germenotta. Additionally the single sleeve from Interscope also says Morgan Jackson. Twitter is down at the moment so I can't link to Anthony Preston (A songwriter at interscope) who sent me the official single sleeve. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The song "Everybody Fucks" is credited to Jackson Morgan according to All music see here. I accept that its the same songwriter as "Boomerang" however we usually credit the songwriter as per how they're credited on the release credits and in this case its says Morgan Jackson. Just as with Lady Gaga if the credits say Steffani Germenotta then thats what goes down. Either way that's a side issue tbh. Still don't think the songwriter can inherit his notability from a single notable charting song per WP:NMUSIC/WP:BLP. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article about Morgan Jackson (deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Jackson). —rybec 00:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THE One Total Home Experience

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

This article appears to be a WP:COATRACK violation, serving only as a way to make certain that the business and the trial are more closely associated by Google. I can't find much to say about the business itself. —Kww(talk) 19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refocus or WP:TNT delete - speaking from a strictly WP:GNG standpoint, this is a weak keep, but to be appropriate it needs to have much much more on the actual company itself and much less on the court case (which can be merged into the case's page if necessary), so I wouldn't object to removing the section or deleting the entire article. Ansh6 6 6 20:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FindYourFate.com

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

The only sources provided are "brief [summaries] of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", which WP:WEBCRIT says are insufficient to establish notability. McGeddon (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my initial suggestion after viewing the article is keep. This article does have some issues, but overall I would say this passes GNG for the simple reason they are highly thought of in the horoscopes industry. This is evident by the number of leading media companies that have mentioned them and the books they've featured in. I do think however we could do with some extra references for verification. Verdict78 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mentioned within lists of other dozens of items or given a url credit on a page aren't sufficient evidence of notability per WP:WEBCRIT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources required per WP:WEBCRIT. "Featured Books" means a book that links to the website, a rather low criteria for being "featured". IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. bd2412 T 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Gallo Cassarino

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

Not-notable - self promotional. Amateur level. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's listed as an international champion at [20]. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not clear what the above referenced international championship is. However, the same site does show him ranked #10 in the world and that appears enough to meet WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment International Champ in this context appears to mean the best non-Thai that competed. The competitions all appear to be amateur in non-major promotions. Not impressed.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WBC is professional, not amateur. The IFMA is amateur.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think his top ten WBC ranking is sufficient, barely, to show notability--especially since there is other coverage of him. I would definitely say he's a professional, not an amateur. Papaursa (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Izmir Province

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

purely a directory and weblinking of non notable hospitals. as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, but OCE aside, couldn't this be said about all entries in Category:Lists of hospitals in Turkey and even it's parent cat (by country)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (see above discussion for Bursa hospitals.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The idea that any province of Turkey might not contain any notable hospitals is simply incredible, so such a list is perfectly acceptable. I also see no part of WP:NOTDIR that comes anywhere close to applying to this list. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logan City Jets

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

Non-notable sports team, founded last year. No independent showing of notability. Neutrality^talk 19:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Female Gridiron League of Queensland. I think the topic is better served if we pool our resources and develop one good article about the league and its clubs. Even as the first major premiers in the league, I don't see enough for a standalone article about this team. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Logan City Jets are the FIRST team to win a championship in the FIRST sanctioned women's American Football league in Australia. If this were a men's team we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The problem with history is it is often written by men with bad memories or who were not present. The historical significance of this team cannot be diminished by the fact they were founded last year. Not notable? Tell that to the women on the Logan City Jets who proudly lifted the championship trophy for the first time in a sport now growing rapidly across Australia. We have the opportunity by getting history right. Keep the Logan City Jets. Future generation of female gridiron Warriors will want to know who were the first. Pgollan (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If this were a men's team we wouldn't even be having this discussion." Likely true: it would have been speedy deleted already under CSD A7 as a non-fully-professional team in a non-top-level amateur league and also for not meeting WP:ORG. The fact that it is the first women's team in Australia gives it enough appearance of notability that we're having this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has any bearing on notability, Pgollan. There is no reliable, independent, significant external coverage. Neutrality^talk 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This user created the article. Neutrality^talk 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's not much, but it does appear to pass WP:GNG through some of the sources. Needs editing/cleanup, but appears to be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Draeden

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

This does does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–1999). BOZ (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. As far as Wikipedia policies, this fails WP:GNG with all of the sources being primary and so the options are: deletion or if there is appropriate content and appropriate target article, merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Merge or redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–1999) would be acceptable, but this monster is obscure even in D&D rules. It is much more suited to a D&D Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' or merge Asking for real wold details is relevant only if wee are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work (or, in this case, group of works. When a fictional universe is so complicated or important or has so many different manifestations, that w need to divide up the coverage (as we certainly do for this one), then the individual parts of it will some of them necessarily be about only the in-universe portions. Otherwise, it's like asking that a subarticle on someone's Scientific work doesn't talk about his Life--in a split article, that's inevitable. If one really thinks this way, we can solve it by retaining all the content and merging it into a single very long article, but that's not a useful arrangement. and Furthermore, the nomination gives no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect.

And in any case it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you point out the policy that says "Asking for real wold details is relevant only if wee are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work"? I am pretty sure such a rider does not exist on WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG as it has zero third-party reliable sources. A merge might be appropriate, but even that's pushing it. - Aoidh (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IDonate Pakistan

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

An organization that fails WP:CORP, with no significant coverage even in a single reliable secondary source. SMS ^Talk 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I am a Pakistani residing abroad and i think Nawa-i-Waqt is reliable enough to be considered as a source. It is far desirable to improve articles at the first place. As par discussion i had here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Help_Required_On_Stub_pages it seems Pakistani organizations doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia.For example have a look at bank below waiting to be deleted it doesn't cite any external source but we all, even you and myself knows this bank exist and is notable in every means, still we want to delete it for no good reasons, once again i'd say its better to improve things. --VI-007 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see two newspaper sources and organization does look notable to me. --VI-007 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck as from a blocked sockpuppet. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgininfatuation, being notable in a country (like in Pakistan) and being notable here at Wikipedia are two completely different things. Wikipedia (editors) has laid down a guideline for what is to be considered notable and what not. The related notability guideline says "An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization". So we need 1.multiple 2.secondary 3.reliable and 4.independent (of the subject) sources, covering the subject 5.non trivially. The Nawa-i-Waqt source covers the topic trivially, so it can be used in the article but it is of no use in establishisng the notability of the subject. Hope this clarifies. And we all are here to build and improve this encyclopedia, but at the same time we need to strictly maintain a threshold for inclusion of articles, you may understand this once you spend a day at New Page Patrolling. --SMS ^Talk 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides you haven't mentioned your second news source. --SMS ^Talk 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete based on the article as it is now but I hope additional reliable independent sources are added before this closes. To the closing admin: If the references improve significantly between my last edit of this AfD and its close, please give my opinion less weight than if no such improvement occurs. If there is not enough improvement to demonstrate notability, I would be open to userfication now or at any point in the future if (and only if) the primary author or another editor states he will either improve the article and submit it through Articles for creation or a similar process or ask to have it deleted within a month of userfication. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well yes we need to aware of WP:SYSTEMIC and I am usually the first to say a source in Pakistan (or India) can be worth many in other countries (see relevant WP:INDAFD). But I look at this organization and wonder. It is only two years old, a single office, has 15 employees - this is a tiny barely established NGO. Per WP:NGO it probably would not pass. WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on the article as it is now but I hope additional reliable independent sources are added before this closes. --Mike 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.davies1 (talk • contribs) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 13:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGO, well established and locally known Non Governmental Organization. --Jay (Lets Talk) 05:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what criteria do you say they are well established? And how does it pass WP:NGO #1 when it's only locally known? And how does it pass WP:NGO #2? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs expansion not deletion. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deleting this one doesnt make any sense to me. it is well written and well referneced where as i reviewed some of the pages which does not even have any reference. I.e: have a look at my contributions here: Special:Contributions/Enlightinggemini almost 70% of them are well reviewed but without references. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Coe

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

Actor seems non notable, and approx half of this BLP is unsourced. Also, it seems to have been written by the subject, which is very much discouraged. It also seems overly promotional in tone, but due to the number of sources (although not sure if they're reliable), I thought it best to go for AfD rather than Speedy Delete. Benboy00 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this account was created in order to create the page Chad Coe so that is why it reflects a similar name. This writer is not the actor of which the post is being created. Second, what deems an actor notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. There are plenty examples of less "Notable" actors that already exist on the site. How do you measure this? The post Chad Coe suggest and can prove through the references that Chad Coe has been on Network shows, theatrically released films, and on stage at the most prestigious theatre maybe in the world. Third of all the being called promotional in tone most likely reflects the mention of his current project and his next film. That is no different than listing a filmography which will be added at a later date. This writer is not trying to sell tickets or promote, but just share a relevant public figure who will continue to become more notable as his career continues. Also to refer to the comment "not sure if the sources are reliable" Were the References even checked? I can assure you each one is valid spanning from Stephanie powers personal website ^ Powers, Stephanie (2, June 2013) "Latest News"Retrieved September 11, 2013 mentioning the work they both did together in her latest news section to a release of the World Premiere of The Light Bulb ^ BWW News Desk (4 September 2013) "NoHo Arts Center Ensemble to Premiere THE LIGHT BULB" BroadwayWorld.com Retrieved September 11th, 2013. This writer wants her contribution to not be judged based on the fact that she hasn't been editing and contributing for years but by the content of the post. I believe the post is valid and willing to edit if necessary, but feel that Chad Coe is a public figure of note and worthy of Wikipedia. I did not have a chance to Reference everything yet but can assure you he is well received and well known. Also with his next few projects he is slated to be one of the up and coming leading men.

Thank you for your time and respect the process. Please let me know what we can do to solve this together. chadmcoe —Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chadmcoe, can I first ask that you sign your posts with 4 ~'s. Next, for information regarding notability, please see the guidelines set out by wikipedia, specifically WP:NACTOR. I apologise for assuming that you are the actor in person, but you must admit that the username certainly suggests that. I think there is actually a rule against having a username suggesting that you are a specific person, although I can't look for it at the moment. Back onto the notability guideline, from what I can see, this actor does not fill any of those three requirements. I can assure you that I did read the sources, and I'm not sure any of them could be called particularly reliable. Nevertheless, I still maintain that the latter half of this BLP is unsourced. There is no specific information about Chad in any of these sources except that he was in the productions, so any information about a camera rental company or clothing company is completely unsourced. An imdb profile has been added since my last message, but this is inappropriate for use as a BLP source, as it is user editable (it's like using wikipedia as a source). I am not questioning the validity of the sources, I am questioning the reliability, and I'm afraid I can't take your assurances on that. While your status as a new user is perhaps slightly relevant to this AfD (it lends some evidence to the fact that you may be Chad Coe), the main reasons I have listed this for AfD are those explained above. While writing this message, I managed to find the guideline on usernames. Please read WP:SPA and more importantly WP:REALNAME, because they explain that it is somewhat likely that you will be blocked for your use of that username. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Navy Supply Corps (United States). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Expeditionary Supply Corps Officer

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

Not encyclopedia. The text is just one long quote from an official Department of the Navy memo without adding anything. Runarb (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Navy Supply Corps (United States). There isn't enough content to warrant a standalone article, though it certainly would belong at that relevant article until notability can be established and/or enough content is created to warrant a split. - Aoidh (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ExPlus

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

Author declined PROD whose reason for deletion was that the article "lacks amy proof of notability. However, it also seems to be a spam, since articles on this company are created on Chinese, English and Russian sections of Wikipedia within several days; articles here and at Chinese WP are both authored by user Explus.tw, and while on RuWP it was created unregistered (as IP-user), Russian words below definitely meam the same person in all 3 cases." Peridon (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Russian reference looks like a directory entry, as does the Taiwan Industry one. Peridon (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update about Russian interwiki Actually in Russian Wikipedia it was already posted trice - twice as ExPlus (at least one of them under the same Explus.tw username), both speedy deleted, then as Explus (nominated for deletion and is very likely to be deleted again). Tatewaki (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the explanation by author on his user talk page about the link with Russian words is a lie: Even just this one line "Изготовление печатных плат и контрактное производство под ключ в Тайване" is clear "short ad" for any Russian speaker (the term "под ключ" /lit. under the key/ in Russian is used in ads or contracts and always refers to "ready-made" production, repair or small business organizing, "just unlock/open and you can use it/live/work here"). The given link leads to article about history of circuit boards (with year 1948 as latest date) NOT mentioning or recommending ExPlus, with several short commercial ads above it - two on circuit boards, one on "applying grease to any surfaces" and one on "repairing apartments, cottages and offices" with minimum price per square meter. Tatewaki (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting notability guidelines - Wikipedia is not a trade directory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Helped this editor earlier, but the Russian source is nonsense. More importantly, in Taiwan, although 耀騰股份有限公司 gets directory entries, no sign yet of a trade magazine article. I would expect the creator to be able to source a Taiwanese trade magazine or giving a short story about any moderately notable company. I get the feeling that the article creator is the Russian importer and not him/herself in Taiwan, in which case articles could perhaps be found. But until such time, delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Considering barely understandable language in version in Russian Wikipedia (already deleted 3rd time, as spam), it's not "Russian importer" but "Taiwanese section for export to Russia", even Russian version of their website is more legible. I have tried myself to check for sources at their site (even moderate companies sometimes have "Media about us" section) or in GoogleBooks, however the former is all advertisement with exclamation points here and there, and the latter gives only ad/selling sections of electronics magazines (sometimes even in respectable magazines however all these sections of "Board ExPlus AAAA - $XXX, Board ExPlus BBB - $YYY" still remain just an ad) Tatewaki (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Andy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The notability of the topic hinges on whether the cited sources are considered "reliable" within the accepted Wikipedia definition, and there is no consensus here on that point. —Darkwind (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Flandrensis

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

Non-notable hobby. Was deleted in 2009 Kleuske (talk) 16:03, 11 September 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 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:33, 11 September 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}}.

Delete per previous AfD. Ansh6 6 6 18:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A disadvantage is that micronationalism isn’t well-known in Belgium and the Netherlands and it is considered a joke (with the exception of historical micronations like Neutral Moresnet). Therefore Flandrensis isn’t accepted on the Dutch Wikipedia. It is curious that an user of the Dutch Wikipedia (who voted against the page on the Dutch Wikipedia last year) nominate the article after an journalist last week mentioned in an newspaper article about Flandrensis: “Flandrensis has a page on the English, French, Russian and Ukraine Wikipedia, but not on the Dutch because it seems that Belgian micronations are not important”. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that "micronationalism" is considered a joke everywhere in the world, and a very boring, not funny, joke. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides: i'm a user of en.wiki and i've got the history to back it up. Kleuske (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was deleted in 2009 because there were no reliable sources. The current article already exist since 2012 and the article have different media (newspaper, magazine, radio, book, etc.) as sources from 4 different countries. (see references on the page of the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis). This hobby-micronation have the same criteria as other hobby-micronations on Wikipedia like the Republic of Molossia, the Kingdom of Vikesland, the Empire of Atlantium or Westarctica. In addition to some other pages, all information is based on neutral and reliable sources. I am willing to provide a copy of all sources from the media to those who want them to judge this article. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability appears to be met and indicated by sourcing on the article. Previous AFD discussion does not appear to be relevant here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: previous AfD discussion irrelevant, as several independent notable sources have since been found. This article is, in fact, one of the best cited out of all micronation articles on Wikipedia. It seems clear to me that this nomination is little more than a spill-over from the Dutch Wikipedia, which has very few articles on micronations and which deleted Flandensis' article there not long ago. Trausten2 16:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems to be the most well-documented micronational-related article on this encyclopaedia. It'll be an absolute shame to delete this using such a ridiculous and irrational reasoning as non-notable hobby. It is, however, an absolute shame that some people still want pages deleted out of personal sentiments and opinions, instead of rational and objective reasoning. Cipika (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Micronations are a non-notable hobby? But you have no issue with, for example, systems for the description of albatros feathers invented by Australian hobbyist birdwatchers? Well then.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 17:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That Plumage Index at least has benefits outside the narrow scope of it's inventors. To wit: it "has been instrumental in the discovery of several genetically isolated populations and consequent description of new taxa". Now there's notability for you. Besides, i thought articles were judged on their own merits, not those of other articles. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And some might argue that the description of new taxa of birds is irrelevant. In regards to your point, they are indeed, but they are judged against uniform criteria. If you contend that micronationalism as a whole is irrelevant, I suggest you also nominate the articles micronation, Hutt River Province, Sealand and all other micronational articles for deletion. Otherwise, it appears like you're just on a personal vendetta against this particular one.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes... False dichotomy. Good one. Either i'm against the concept as a whole ande hence should nominate other articles or i'm on a "personal vendetta". Got anything to back that up? Kleuske (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then explain why you only nominated this micronation? Is it a coincidence that you was involved in the deletion on the Dutch Wikipedia more than a year ago, is it a coincidence that this was mentioned in a newspaper last week? No doubt that you a very active wikipedian with a lot of interests, and you use professional terms to counter arguments of others. But this article must been judged based on Wikipedia criteria: relevance, neutrality and reliable sources, not on a personal opinion about micronationalism in Belgium --Lyam Desmet (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I came across this one. Besides, if you argue that the article must be judged on it's encyclopedic merits, why bother inquiring after my motivations? Trying to cast doubt on those is poisoning the well. Yet another fallacy. Kleuske (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above. Too well sourced to delete. JPuglisi (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. A few passing mentions in silly season news reports doesn't make a topic notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only rationale explanation I can find for nominating this article for deletion is that someone has too much spare time and too few things to fill it with. The article is fairly well-documented, supported with accurate and reliable sources, and as of the "non-notability" of micronations, this is not even worth discussing. Kleuske is right saying that in 2009 a nomination for deletion took place, but he forgot or didn't want to mention that it was a completely different article, although with the same name. During these four years, Flandrensis emerged in various media of Belgium and foreign countries, so calling it "un-notable" is just ridiculous. Perhaps someone here really needs to get a life... Escargoten (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow. An Ad hominem in lieu of an actual argument. I'm impressed. See Phil Bridgers arguments on the "media". Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone who support the page agrees that the article is fairly well-documented and supported with accurate and reliable sources. There is a variety of media from 4 different countries. The article of Flandrensis is a well-documented micronational-related article. And the argument of Phil Bridgers about “micronationalism” is a subjective judgment. If people want to judge this page neutral and based on facts , I’m willing to provide a copy of all sources from the media. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All information is verifiable by different media from several countries. I’m from Belgium and never heard of micronations before. I found this article after reading an article in the newspaper. I also study other articles related to micronations and this is one of the best sourced articles about micronations I found on Wikipedia. --Soenensbright (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)— Soenensbright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn Another one. If people put the energy they put into these so-called micro-nations into something like writing real fiction (or editing encyclopaedias...), they'd probably have more fun. This looks no more notable than any other of the ones without actual terra firma that belongs to them (Hutt River and Sealand having actual possessions). Delete. Peridon (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Aerican Empire claims Mars, Pluto and an imaginary planet. Westarctica claims land on Antarctica, Neue Slowenische Kunst, and Nova Roma don’t have actual possessions, etc. There are 60 micronations on Wikipedia, almost all different types (historical, hobby, virtual, territorial, …) and 40 of those don’t exist anymore. It is a fact that almost any new micronation try to made an article on Wikipedia but there are criteria. For example the article of Flandrensis has been deleted in 2009 and that decision was correct. But today the article of Flandrensis is one of the best cited out of all micronation articles on Wikipedia (quote Trausten2). The article already exist more than a year, the Russian article is older and there is also a French and Ukraine article. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Westarctica should be deleted too. One of the refs is a dead link (for me. at least), another is hardly independent. No micronation that doesn't have a solid base (like Hutt River and Sealand, and that bit of Florida that temporarily declared independence) has any serious claim to notability. Not any more than the bogus titles people buy (or 'have conferred on them' by the 'monarchs' of kingdoms and empires that were overrun thousands of years ago (or by individuals with self conferred fancy titles on the internet, which vary from site to site...). They are producers of fantasy (not even bogus) stamps and coins that cannot be used or spent. Presumably they sell enough to make it worth while, although who would but them I don't know. There are people that write to soap opera characters, though... Peridon (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Flandrensis was just a new micronation who add their page on wikipedia I would agree to delete it. But how many micronations have media attention in 4 different countries? Not much articles of micronations on wikipedia are so well sourced. And the article is in 3 other languages so it must be interesting for other wikipedians to translate the article? Most micronations on Wikipedia are mentioned in the book “Micronations: Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations. Oakland, CA: Lonely Planet Publications. 2006”. But if a new French book about micronations (“Les Micronations, Montreuil-sur-Brêche, Diaphane, 2013, pages 160, ISBN 978-2-919077-19-9”) even write about Flandrensis, together with all other Belgian media sources and Chastny Korrespondent is also not a small newspaper, it seems that this micronation is more than an amateur micronation. Therefore this page is without any doubt relevant for micronations on Wikipedia. --Soenensbright (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Chastny Korrespondent is not a small newspaper, because it is not a newspaper of any size, but a web site that publishes unpaid user-submitted content, and as such is no more reliable than a Twitter feed or an unsourced Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is written from a neutral point of view. It has an informative purpose and has multiple sources, including a book (source nr. 10). Most of the arguments by people, in favor of deletion of the article, state opinions instead of just being objective. If they were objective, they couldn't find any reasonable criteria why this wikipedia article should be deleted.Max fenix (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)— Max fenix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That book is unknown to Worldcat, Google Books and Amazon. Where did you get hold of a copy to verify that it contains significant coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a description on the website of the ublisher Diaphane-publitions. The book is available since 14 September 2013, so the book exist only a week. But I also found a promotion of the book. On 22 September 2013 there is an exposition about the book in Strasbourg. Léo Delafontaine is a photograph who took photos of micronations around the world. Regarding his website he was also on the micronational conference in London. On the French Wikipedia the articles of the micronations Atlantium and Elleore have references to him --Soenensbright (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the photo of the micronation claiming Pluto and Mars. How independent is a book of these micronations? Peridon (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Léo Delafontaine is a photograph who visit micronations around the world since 2 years and made several portfolios. He is nominated this year for the French Prix Literaire de La Porte Dorée and even have an exposition, so I don’t doubt on the professionalism of the photograph. There is also another book about micronations on the internet from Mohammad Bahareth, but that is just copy and paste from MicroWiki, a wiki for micronations were articles are made by the micronations their self, so that book isn’t independent or neutral. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find no sources in a Google news and news archive search, and one sketchy book about micronations. Its simply not notable, a number of the "votes" above are absolute baloney that haven't passed muster since 2005. I hereby declare war on the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis, and have no doubt, it is an existential threat.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll join you in that declaration of war! Ansh6 6 6 05:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I agree with Max fenix, people who are in favor to delete the article state opinions instead of just being objective. A declaration of war only prove your prejudices about micronations and is not a worthy contribution in this discussion, therefore I can’t take you judgment of this article seriously. And you can’t find everything on Google like publications in Belgian newspapers etc. So follow your argument: if it's not on the internet, it doesn’t exist? Almost every post I repeat: this article is written from a neutral view, every sentence has several reliable / verifiable sources, there is a variation of media and all sources are from 4 different countries. Other Wikipedians consider this article interesting enough to translate it in 3 other languages and in comments above users consider this page as one of the best cited out of all micronation articles on Wikipedia. Therefore keep.--Lyam Desmet (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyam, I hope you are wearing protective armor, which perhaps you don when you come over to the English wikipedia just to focus on editing the Flandrensis article. I have just bombed Flandrensis, and Westarctica too, just for the hell of it. Listen, the Dutch wikipedia deleted the article more than once [21] [22][23] because its easiest in that language to determine this is at best one notch above someone's fantasy sports team, despite the sheen of notability you are trying to place on it. There is some sourcing out there, I will admit, most notably local newspaper puff coverage [24][25], but the other sources are fairly ridiculous micro-nation groupie things. And you are totally biased, as you are the Flandrensisian Minister for Media & Communication[26], your royal mission is to keep this wikipedia article at all costs!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 10:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to the claim about other language wikipedia versions showing notability, I note that you created the French version[27], and credited a Flandrensisian ambassador in France for writing it[28]. Another agent of your regime penned the Russian one.[29] This is further evidence of your Flandrensisian information jihad.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes I’m a Flandrensisian and I create the page of Flandrensis. Many will consider that I create this page for my own interest and use that as a motivation to delete this page, but that is their opinion (I think I'm not the only wikipedian who create articles about something (s)he is involved) and nobody can accuse me that I used the page for propaganda: I respect all criteria of Wikipedia: the whole text is neutral and every sentence have reliable sources. The page on the Dutch Wikipedia was first time deleted because there were no reliable sources (no discussion about that), the second time because there was one source, but not enough (still I agree with that), the third time was a copy of this discussion here when only the personal opinion of 2 users was result of removing the article. On the Dutch Wikipedia they only accept historical micronations, all other types of micronationalism are jokes. You mention two websites of Het Nieuwsblad and WTV, but those are only a small summary of the real articles in other newspapers, every time a 2 page long edition (see all references in the article). You also mention ridiculous micro-nation groupie things, there are a lot of micronational websites and fora but all information of the article is from the verifiable sources. The reason why I want to keep this article on Wikipedia is very simple: the article of Flandrensis is an informative article about micronationalism that mention several aspect about micronationalism: political simulations, cultural organizations, diplomacy in the micronational community, how micronations claims their territory, is has photos of stamps, currency, an international conference of micronations, etc. How many articles about micronationalism on Wikipedia have so much information and reliable sources? For you a micronation is just a fantasy-nation and this article is part of a Jihad (again a personal opinion), but this article provide neutral information for people who want to know something about micronationalism. And if my opinion is not credible, see the comments above from other wikipedians. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "other wikipedians" you refer to above are more of your Flandrensisian agents, with few edits if any edits outside this page. Surely this violates some treaty or other? Now, Phil Bridger and Peridon, who promote deletion, I do recognize. Where are these other articles showing this micronation is notable? Scan them and post them online somewhere, because too many of the cites are sketchy. Many micronations are fantasy nations. I could go to a local afwerkplek and declare my stall a micronation if I wanted to.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why words like Afwerkplek (I’m Dutch and even I had to look up what this meant= Sex drive-in), Jihad (yes even you twitteraccount is full with sex and Jihad), declaring war, etc.? This is a discussion on Wikipedia, not your personal blog. Also, posting "Ceterum autem censeo Flandrensis esse delendam!!" on the Facbookpage of Flandrensis isn't neutral... Other users who are in favor to delete the article like Peridon discuss on a mature level. Your only argument to delete this article is to accuse everyone who is in favor to keep the page being part of Flandrensis? My word means nothing so ask itself to them. And about the newspapers: is there a possibility to upload PDF-files from my personal computer in this discussion (the documents are not on the internet)? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: From the two sources mentioned by Milowent: "Hetgeen hij doet is puur een hobby." ("strictly a hobby") and "De micronatie is een uit de hand gelopen hobby" ("a hobby which has gotten out of hand"). Q.E.D. How would non-published pdf files from your personal computer show notability? Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article micronations you notice that there are many types of micronations, and Flandrensis is under the category hobby-micronation just like Molossia and 95% of all existing micronations (except some "micronationalists" who really believe they are a real counrty). It is even on the page of Flandrensis: second sentence in History. The micronation developed into a political simulation and later into a cultural organization, perfect examples of political or cultural micronationalism. And the PDF-files are the newspapers, I don't have them in JPG-files. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is confusion about the definition of micronationalist. Someone who start his own country (micronation) and believes (s)he have a real country: that is is not a micronationalist but someone a psychical problem. So every micronationalist with sense for reality know that his country isn’t real, so you can consider that as an “organisation”, or a hobby. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not protesting an article about micronationalism as a hobby. I'm contesting the notability of this particular hobby club with (according to sources provided by Milowent) 90 members from around Roesselaere, Belgium. Besides, documents originating (as far as anyone can tell) on your personal computer can hardly be considered reliable sources. Kleuske (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF-files are just scans of the original newspaper, so why not reliable? And regarding the latest news article they have 114 members from 21 different nationalities, but its headquarters are in West-Flanders. If you could send me an e-mail account I can e-mail you the articles in the newspapers. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to freely upload pdfs at scribd.com.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will upload the documents tomorrow and publish them here --Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught up with that one. Don't publish them here if they are scans of newspapers. They are copyright and can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. What scribd's rules on copyright are, I couldn't say. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information, I check the policy on scribd and I can't upload the documents because I don't own the copyright. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then on the unorthodox way. The files are temporarily uploaded on a wiki for micronations: Belang van Limburg, De Weekbode, Gazet van Antwerpen, Het Weekelijks Nieuws. I request kindly to keep this discussion on this page on Wikipedia and to remain serious. Posting sarcastic messages on the Facebookpage of Flandrensis and ridiculing the micronation is not the behavior of a Wikipedian, show some respect for other people their interests. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And calling for a bit more order. If there has been intervention on an outside page by any Wikipedians, may I ask for it to stop - and the same goes for any recruiting of posters on either side. Whatever our opinions of people's hobbies (and many think that editing a free encyclopaedia is a weird hobby...), people are entitled to them (subject to legality). There are many hobbies that are notable, Angling for one. There are millions of anglers and angling clubs, but they are individually not made notable because they follow a notable hobby. Now, those papers. I haven't looked at them because my Flemish is on a par with my Dutch - can't speak but can often spot spam. (I've even spotted spam in Indonesian...) If they're only temporarily there, they can't be used as permanent references, but the papers can - if considered reliable independent sources. I propose to ask User:Drmies to have a look if he has time. I don't think this is recruiting, as I am not proposing to ask him to !vote (note the ! - these discussions are not a head count), and have no idea of his possible views. If this is OK, I'll ping him. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have the good Dr. weigh in, that's a great idea. The papers as they are tell me the group has been featured in local press more than once; if these are significant papers I may have to reconsider my !vote.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Het Nieuwsblad, Gazet van Antwerpen and Het Belang van Limburg are one of the bigger Belgian newspapers. Het Wekelijks Nieuws and De Weekbode are West-Flemish regional newspapers but both part of Knack (magazine). The articles in Het Wekelijks Nieuws and De Weekbode I read before (I’m from West-Flanders), the other articles are new for me. I compare those with the article and all references to the newspapers are correct. Some headlines are humoristic (“If our government falls we have a new one in 2 weeks” is a link to the Belgian political crisis in 2010-2012), but the articles are serious and neutral and not sensational. They clearly describe micronationalism and its elements (diplomacy, politics, elections, cultural, symbols, enz.). They also write about the misconception about micronationalism and also describe what are the activities of a micronation ( in this case Flandrensis). All journalists did their research (especially in the Gazet van Antwerpen and Belang van Limburg, the journalist visit several micronations in Europe). But I’m not a regular user on wikipedia, I found this article and discussion after the most recent news article mention that there was a page on Wikipedia. I’m in favor to keep the article of Flandrensis because it is very informative about micronations and it have many independent sources. But I understand if other wikipedians wants the opinion about the articles from a more professional user. --Soenensbright (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tend towards meta:Inclusionism on Wikipedia and have studied micronations quite a bit. If the article is well-written, has good content, and is sourced by at least somewhat independent sources, there is no reason to exclude it, in my view. Wikipedia is not confined by the pages of a physical encyclopedia. The obsession of some editors with throwing out perfectly good content over some quaint interpretation of the guidelines is not conforming to the vision of Jimmy Wales. I think it is more about power then about having a good encyclopedia. Some editors want to feel like this subject is their domain and people should follow their edicts. I feel not much different when it comes to my articles that I worked very hard on, but I also respect other peoples input. There certainly is grounds to delete nonsense and unverifiable articles, but something like this, while minute, is worth keeping in order to have a broadly complete reviev of the micronational movement.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say. Those articles are indeed written up in some otherwise reliable sources (Gazet van Antwerpen, Het Nieuwsblad). Unfortunately, nl:Maandag wasdag is a redirect to the page on laundry--it is also an expression used in the Dutch media (used to be a separate section in de Volkskrant where all the weird stuff that had gathered over the week and the weekend was collected: it's tongue-in-cheek kind of material. There's another nice expression, nl:Komkommertijd, a much funner word than the English equivalent Silly season. I haven't checked the dates on those articles, but it should not be a surprise that newspapers over there also publish silly stuff. I personally don't put much stock in the sociology of micronations as if they were something important: they're not, they're hobbies. Those things are not nations in the normal sense, and unless one way or another they become meaningful they fall under the "existence does not mean notability" rule of thumb--and that they actually "exist" in a meaningful way is very much in doubt, unless real sources (books, academic articles) are available (I place no value in the above-mentioned book, which strikes me as the equivalent of a coffee table book). Being written up in a newspaper doesn't always have to mean something. Remember, newspapers cater to their audience, and if we delete Orville the flying helicopter cat (it's still in Colonel Warden's user space, somewhere) I see no reason to keep this one (and that goes for a lot of the other micronations as well. I can accept the Swedish one, the one that was bought up by the Cristos, since that passes the GNG and has artistic value, but this is nothing. No gallery of colorful pictures and stamps can change that. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that all of the sources in the article that have dates cited were published between June and September, the height of the cucumber season. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, to underline that my comment above is a serious observation rather than just a light-hearted aside, I would note that the chance of nine randomly selected dates all falling in a particular four-month period is about one in twenty thousand. This would seem to be pretty strong evidence that these are silly season sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That's doing a kind of OR, one might argue, but by the same token editors here should be mature and well-read enough to realize that there are different kinds of articles printed in newspapers, and these are all of one specific kind. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Diaphane publishes photographic art. Unless the subject is to be described as a work of visual art (and we'd need depth of coverage, etc), this isn't going to help. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the website of Leo Delafontaine there are examples of the book, every micronation in the book has its own informative description, so the book is more than only photos. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the point. I didn't say it was a photographic book, I said the publisher publishes photographic art. They don't publish scientific or journalistic investigations, and thus I seriously doubt the reliability of the information provided therein (you know as well as I do where that information comes from: from the person who invented the specific "micronation"). The book, given its provenance, simply does not lend weight to the notability of your subject. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Outside your personal opinion about micronations: the article in those 2 newspapers were written in a certain period (cucumber season), but the sources are reliable and verifiable. And then there are also the other sources who are verifiable. --Soenensbright (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in the newspapers were the result of some media attention after the international micronational conference in Londen (July 2012), the recent article was in the week of the 5th celebration of the micronation in September. For the other sources I don’t have any explanation. Still, all information comes from verifiable sources.--Lyam Desmet (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Duplicate vote stricken by Phil Bridger (talk)) The article is well-written, supplied with sufficient and reliable sources, I really don't see any reason for deletion. Reference to 2009 is ridiculous, indeed the article was (probably righteously) deleted back then, but seeing that now it has completely different base and has multiple external references, there really isn't any need to delete it. Escargoten (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionsist, believe it or not citizens of Flandrensis, but even I cannot ignore that almost every keep !vote here is from an infrequent wikipedia editor or someone with a tie to the subject. We have done a close review of the sources that Lyam was kind enough to provide, and I must sadly concur with Drmies. Please commence deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only person here who has connection with the micronation, accusing all people who are in favor to keep the page being a citizen of Flandrensis isn't an argument to delete the article. I'm glad to noticed that many wikipedians (professional users or not) look further instead of judge on personal opinion. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Milowent. It looks good, but that's irrelevant to notability, which hasn't been conclusively demonstrated. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Quite a few of us are 'professionals', but not in connection with our Wikipedia editing - including the admins. There is a handful of paid employees, who have WMF in their signatures when editing as employees, but use different names when being volunteers like the rest of us. None of them have edited this discussion. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valentino Skenderovski

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Seems unnotable. Article's only major contributor, Tinsken, is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources, more of a resume of a WP:COMPETENTPROFESSIONAL, which doesn't mean you are notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Donnelly (Scottish footballer)

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No FPL or intl apps. Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As player and now coach in a team in the third tier of Austrlian soccer (in a country where this is not a major game), I do not think he qualifies as notable enough to have an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Papadopoulos

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, player has not played in an FPL or played internationally. Fenix down (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Zorić

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no FPl or intl apps. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a large number of appearances in the NSL in the internet era would probably result in third-party coverage of this player, but I wasn't able to find anything to substantiate that. Smells a bit fishy to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilios Kalogeracos

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Per nom. Both Perth Glory and Kuala Lumpur were not playing in FPLs at the time he played for them. Fenix down (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he played for Stockport in the Football League, a fully-pro league. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stockport were playing in the 8th tier of English football when this guy was playing for them therefore does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Simione001: - haha, you're joking right? As the source I have provided clearly shows, he played for them during their 1997–98 season, when they played in the Football League First Division - which was the old 2nd tier. And as far as I'm aware, Stockport have never been lower than the 6th tier - and this is their first season in it. You seriously need to brush up on your knowledge of the English football league system - you clearly have not followed WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 09:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, your right. Was looking at the wrong thing.Simione001 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Changed opinion following GS's work. Passes NFOOTY and is well travelled enough to assume GNG too. Fenix down (talk)
Keep - he played in the FL. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ganoderma tsugae var jannieae

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

I see no real proof of the existence of this product, because that's what it is, as far as I can tell: all the evidence comes from patent applications. PROD removed without explanation; if this is anything, it's a marketing effort. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definite marketing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be worth redirecting to Ganoderma tsugae which already discusses medicinal properties of fungi in this group (maybe separate species, maybe not). If G. tsugae var jannieae turns out to be distinct and useful, it might merit its own page, but it'll need RS for that. As it is now, apparently unsourceable, it should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a case of WP:TNT, pure advertising, may or may not merit a mention at Ganoderma tsugae. However, Jannie Chan/Jannie Tay merits an article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stergiopoulos

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Player article shows reference indicating he played in League 2, a FPL. Also indicates that he played in A-league for NZ Kingz which was an FPL so does seem to pass WP:NFOOTY, seems well travelled enough that there would probably be GNG sufficient sources out there, but not so sure about this. Would like to see it worked on first. Fenix down (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He has not played in the A-League. A-League started in 2005. Not sure what div Lincoln was in at that time.Simione001 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played for Lincoln in the league. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Iosifidis

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Standard non-notable footballer, fails the notability guidelines outlined above. Fenix down (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate. —Darkwind (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt in Mood

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

Poorly sourced article about a future, non-notable film. WP:NOTCRYSTAL Benboy00 (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per WP:INDAFD, here are possible Indian News sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate per instructions at WP:Deletion policy. I found evidence that this project began filming, and it may even have completed... but I can find no evidence that it is slated to release in October as stated in the article. We can take it out of mainspace until it is released or until more sources come forward showing is production as notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate: Per Schmidt (I generally try to avoid such arguments "per this editor", but, actually he has told everything what I was going to say). --Tito☸Dutta 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded System Debug Plug-in for Eclipse

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

Some random Eclipse (software) plug-in, or maybe a class/category of related plug-ins. World is full of plug-ins to software systems, I cannot see what makes this notable. Reference section contains only irrelevant links so this currently has zero reliable sources. External links are dead. All usable text (about embedded debugging in general, JTAG, etc.) is already in proper articles. Article has not been improved since early 2012. jni (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not clear at all what the article is about, as per nom. The Capital Letters in the Title might suggest a particular product is being described, which would not meet notability guidelines. The text goes back and forth using different capitalizations and singular and plural, so maybe was intended to talk about the general process, but Wikipedia is not a HOWTO guide. The whole idea of Eclipse is that there are all sorts of "plugins" so nothing notable in one kind of them. W Nowicki (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of why this Eclipse plugin is notable. Google searches seem to mostly return this article and non-RS junk. — daranz [ t ] 23:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Don (film series)#Don 3. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don 3

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

Only announced, production yet to begin Kailash29792 (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don 2#Sequel. Too soon for article per WP:NFF, but a potential search word, which should point where necessary. BOVINEBOY2008 13:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Don (film series)#Don 3. Fails WP:NFF. Sources don't even back up the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Jihad

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

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

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

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

WP:NEO very few hits on google for this term Darkness Shines (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. All insurgents/soldiers/rebels likely have sex from time to time; no need to tell that in encyclopedia. jni (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mix up things. It is not just about having sex. It is about muslim woman prostituting themselves, in some cases even involuntarily, in the name of religion and as part of Jihad. Keep--Markus2685 (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the five sources on the article, all of them are only months old. Not only is it a neologism but it seems to be one of very limited use. A buzz word used in literally just a handful of Internet headlines does not an article make. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several sources report the phenomena and it is a new phrase for what is new to Western readers. Let the article grow as the sources expand. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And the sources are lousy. The only half-way decent one is the IBT and that too is iffy because IBT is primarily a business news site. --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. The IBT source is also calling the campaign a hoax. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hoax or not, the concept seems to be notable. Maybe its better covered under some Syrian war propaganda discussion, but a stand alone article seems defensible, as readers are going to try to look this up. Like the Sex drive-in people do look to see this is a real thing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not WP:NEO. It is the English translation of an Arabic term. Also, it seems to be an important concept of Jihad in the Syrian war, having effects as far as Tunisia. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arabic term itself falls under WP:NEO.--Benfold (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable. It should be Renamed to Sexual jihad, though. --Auric talk 18:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable? 209,000 results As for your rename suggestion, 76,900 results This is certainly a WP:NEO Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of this notable topic here, enough for significant expansion and improvement potential in the future. — Cirt (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was covered in one of the most reputable danish national newspapers today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CygnusPius (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fence sitter I think it's a hard call whether this is truly notable or some of the standard link bait stories from online newspapers. WP:GOOGLEHITS is a bad argument to make about notability as we care about the quality of the sources (I'd agree they aren't great). I also don't think this is exactly a neologism as this article isn't about the specific phrase (i.e it could be changed to Jihad Al-Nikah easily enough with no impact on the article). The real question is whether the issuing of the fatwa was a notable event and the criteria people should be looking at is the WP:EVENT. It satisfies the coverage criterion, but apparently not the depth criterion, but I wouldn't venture whether it should be kept or deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is noteworthy. I however believe it is best titled Jihad al Nikah as that is its correct technical term. Is the push for deletion an attempt to censor information and prevent learning, the very purpose of an encyclopedia? AchisDeGeth (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)— AchisDeGeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How it is noteworthy? Even the cited source[30] tells it a hoax! Please, read WP:NEO.--Benfold (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not quite. The bulk of the article is about the Syrian War and the recruitment of women for those fights. The article you cite (and which you put into Sex Jihad) is a conspiracy theory in Egypt of which there are many [31] and many [32]. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norms. The article's tone doesnot maintain a neutral point of view. The article creator has a history of creating such NOTNEO articles. This[33] shows most of the pages created by the editor are on massacares of Hindus in villages of Bangladesh during 1971 war with Pakistan while the cited sources actually reveals that genocides happened against Bengali people irrespective of whether they are Hindus or Muslims.--Benfold (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At this point, with reliable sources stating that the government of Tunisia is responding to this phenomenon, "sexual jihad" would remain notable even if eventually proved to be some kind of hoax; it would be a notable hoax. Jihad al-nikah appears to meet the requirements for notability due to coverage in reliable sources; I came to this article due to looking up the phenomenon after reading a Reuters news piece about it. --DavidK93 (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverages can meet for the Wikinews but not an encyclopedic article per WP:NEO. The term is not widely known in Muslim world plus there are reliable sources like this[34] that describes the claims from the Tunisian interior minister as unconfirmed.--Benfold (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that Sex Jihad is a neologism or just the title of the article. If it is the subject and the subject is well-sourced we can change the title. It's also not clear to me that this shouldn't be merged but I can't figure out where. War Rape? Prostitution in Syria? None seem to fit the bill. It doesn't belong in Jihad because it isn't part of Islam. It's clearly a fringe phenomena that is part of the Syrian Civil War. But it is being widely reported across a broad spectrum of news organizations. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported, but I don't think the spectrum is necessarily broad. Two of those sources - Shabestan news agency and Shiitenews - are polemical Sunni/Shi'a hate sites that most just "report" propaganda to make one denomination or the other look bad. Removing those would cut the sources down to six. Do six sources, all of which popped up very recently, prove this is a legit term which will be used in the future rather than just a neologism that popped up for a brief period of time in six sources? That seems to be the question here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot more to choose from than six, see google news. As has already been outlined, this isn't about the term, so it can't fail WP:NEO/WP:DICDEF. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if, or especially as, it is a well-documentable hoax. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been swayed by the arguments that this is really a news story or neologism that may not last beyond the next news cycle, and is merely a recent phrase, thus it should not be included without better evidence of notability. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a hoax WP:NOTNEO violation. Utterly unencyclopedic, and a recent thing, showing no evidence of sustained usage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the concept (which is still appearing in the media: [35][36]) not the neologism. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article contains false information, It's meet the criteria for deletion rapid --Mohammedbas (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is false? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing called Sex Jihad or Jihad-Al-Nikah --Mohammedbas (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say otherwise contrary to your point of view and clear indication that you don't like it. It's a topic that's been discussed in the media. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Sex jihad" or "Jihad-Al-Nikah" are completely NEW terms being used by some people and media recently for Syria war. This practice was never there in Islam during the time of Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) nor after that. There is no authenticity of it in Islam. So, it is clear that connecting "sex jihad" to other established terms of Islam like "muslim women", "jihad", "establishment of Islamic rule" etc is nothing but a negative propaganda to insult people of a particular religion. An article at wikipedia can not be ill motivated and should be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tareq2013 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is evidence against this ever happening especially on a wide scale basis. The Islamic clergy cited and those close to him denied the claims stated here tying them to the act. An Encyclopedia must include facts, not rumors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedGahelrasoul (talk • contribs) 15:35, September 25, 2013— AhmedGahelrasoul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

An encyclopedia must contain notable hoaxes, however. So even if this practice is a myth (and I agree I've seen no hard proof it exists in reliable Western media), there has been so much coverage about it, its a clear keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia doesn't have to include anything of the sort. There's no evidence this is anything other than a passing fad. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, an encyclopedia must include notable hoaxes. You might as well call Mary Toft a passing fad.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. This "sex jihad" thing has been in the news for a very short time. Mary Toft's case has been cited and commented on nearly 300 years later. That's a stupid comparison. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But she really give birth to rabbits?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stoned? This "sex jihad" thing has been mentioned in the news for a very short period of time. Mary Toft has received coverage 250-300 years after her death. You claiming that her incident was a "passing fad" in order to defend this "sex jihad" thing is ludicrous in the extreme. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Personal attack removed) Don't be naive. Sex jihad was acknowledged by the Tunisian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Reply to comment people keep deleting[37]: This is not a policy-based reason to keep, 24.90.57.129. If anything, your comment brings to light the realities of Sunni-Shia friction which much of the Western world doesn't really understand. So, its not surprising that an evidence-free concept like Sex jihad would get broad coverage in Western media, clueless to the fact that there is every reason to be skeptical of both sides.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inherently subjective article. Not an encyclopedic topic. Wikifan115 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is based on reliable sources like The Times, The Huffington Post, The Daily Telegraph. The Jihad Al-Nikah is obviously part of the Jihad, which is an encyclopedic topic, and is executed in the name of Jihad. The term "sexual Jihad" is even used by muslim sources like the Iranian Fars News Agency.. see this article Al-Qaeda’s Indecent Proposal to Widows. Also the muslim major Al Arabia news agency talks of a sexual jihad and says, that The issue is not strange. If young men are going there to die in the name of religion, it is not unlikely that women will go there to serve them sexually under the false belief that this is a form of jihad. see Sexual jihad: propaganda or truth?--Markus2685 (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Markus2685 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete, a recently coined neologism. If the term catches on and use persists then the article should be recreated, but there's not much right now that would indicate this is a term used beyond a small number of news publishers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, except for the massive number of news publishers that have used it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the term is not the subject of the discussion; we are meant to be discussing whether the phenomenon of women giving themselves sexually to jihadis is notable. The correct title for the article could be discussed separately. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearian. The term is only within the scope of recent Syrian war plus not-notable like Comfort women --Bisswajit (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got 2,300,000 results in Google Search. It is not anyway a term with little usage. Chris1636 (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil. There's no indication that this sexy buzzword will have any sort of lasting significance. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a horrible article, with horrible sourcing, and promotional tones - but one that can and should be repaired. If nobody fixes it PDQ, future AfD's would be welcome (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hailo

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

This appears to be another Morning277 article with clusterbombs of trivial or dubious citations to sources like Crunchbase. My guess is that someone was paid to create the article. Article's subject, however, does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for an organization. KDS4444^Talk 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this nomination reflects some prejudice about things unknown to me. This is an innovative growth company and most references are by reputable sources like The Telegraph, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, New York Post, etc. Martin Morin (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as by my comments made above here. Martin Morin (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional -- promotional even to the extent of G11-- and start over. The company is notable, and should have an article. Among the signals of promotional writing here are the extensive use of single-sentence paragraphs, the group portrait of the founders, the exaggeration--such as the claim it operates in NYC when when it actually is still in a beta trial there, the emphasis on the benefits and the details ( e.g. "Hailo passengers make two taps on the Hailo smartphone app in order to request and confirm their e-hail") of the service, ( advertising talks about the benefits to the users--encyclopedias talk about what the product does) the detailed description of details of funding, the use of the company name or its key trade name at every possible opportunity. Of course if the article is kept these can be fixed, but it would require fundamental rewriting. We should not reward this type of writing by keeping the material in the edit history and doing ourselves the necessary work the ed. should have known enough to do before coming here with an apparent coi--the only other article the ed worked on substantially is Zoosk, about which similar strictures hold, tho, again, it is notable. ). (The ed. has not yet been blocked, tho I think the socking reasonably clear). MM is a good clearly independent editor interested in the subject, if he';d like to rewrite the article after it's deleted. 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
Keep -- Yes, it is rather too much of an ADVERT. However a company with $50M invested is not insignificant, i.e. notable. If notable, we should have an article. Tag - perhaps; delete - no. A bad article should be imporved not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 18 September 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 September 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to remove advertising language. aycliffe ^talk 21:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisshq Reddy Pogulaa

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

There is no evidence that this person is a notable actor. The usual sources indicate no involvement at all in Aa Naluguru or Vinayakudu (film). Fails WP:ANYBIO and any number of other guidelines/policies. Shirt58 (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 19:58, 3 September 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, —SpacemanSpiff 16:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Watches

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

advertising The Banner talk 18:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Appears to be a historic watchmaker brand relaunched. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Current sourcing tends to support the nomination. Someone buying up a 40-year-dormant brand name is not really a continuation of the historical company, of which I can find no sourcing though I presume it existed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources here are really poor, and don't support independent verification of general notability. Steven Walling • talk 21:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article aren't the only factor. If you search google books you will find sources on Arcadia Watches there. As far as the relaunched brand not being notable, it is more of a footnote to the historic watchmaker. But certainly we can't exclude the fact that someone is bringing the watch brand back. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McGlaflin

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

No indication of notability, no coverage in reliable sources beyond a passing mention in an article on his wife, not a single Google News hit. Huon (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable enough. It says he is "best known" for his work with Yves Saint Laurent, but Google searching for his name and Yves Saint Laurent just leads me back to the Wikipedia article. Jjcleary (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has "worked with Vuitton and St Laurent", yet searches for his surname with Vuitton/Laurent pull up next to nothing? And I do mean next to NOTHING. I'm going to say exactly what I think of this article - and that's that it is all one big fat hoax. Even "his site" is just a picture of shoes and some password-protected pages - it may not even be HIS site, all it shows is the word "McGlaflin". Article created by single purpose editor. Mabalu (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator's assessment. A single purpose account would indicate that it is an attempt at self promotion. Finnegas (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marina World

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

A7. No indication of importance, A3. No content Carwile2 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that the article has "no content" is patently incorrect. The matter should come down to whether we can find sufficient WP:RS for Marina World, or I would suggest, Marina Mall in Kuwait. The Mall appears to be one of the main features of this development. BTW developments like this often end up in Category:Redeveloped ports and waterfronts, although I can't tell here if there was anything in the area prior, so I'm not adding it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can not live up to Wikipedia:Notability, then the result should be delete. I have learned my lesson about A3, I was unsure in the first place if it applied. Carwile2 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone found any notable sources yet? Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this shopping mall counts as a company/organisation, then this should definitely be a speedy delete under A7, but I'm not sure if that can happen after the start of AfD. This place is clearly non-notable, and has no 3rd party sources. It is pretty much an advert, and indeed it is written somewhat like one (although thats hard to judge based on the single sentence that makes up the article). While A3 does not apply as there is (a very small amount of) content, this is still a definite delete. Benboy00 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Benboy ... I don't see sufficient indicia of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Gallery Complex

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

A7. No indication of importance, A3. No content. Source may not be reliable. Carwile2 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the nominator better acquaint himself with what A3 no content actually means. There is sufficient content to identify subject, clearly. It will, and should, simply come down to whether there are sufficient WP:RS to establish notabilityShawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fwiw, I've done an Arabic Google News archive search. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, if no sources have surfaced. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 17:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot !vote twice on your own deletion nomination. You have nominated this article for deletion above and so your views on the matter are already clear. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Souq Al Mubarakeya

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

Article cites no references, and may not be reliable. Carwile2 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem is the spelling of Souq. Google Archives suggests the alternate spelling "Souk Al Mubarakiya" and when one does a search for that, I believe there are sufficient results, even in non-Arabic, to keep this historic market article. But I daresay a Arabic language search would yield much more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my own efforts at an Arabic language Gnews archive search were successful. Using your browser auto-translator, you can see the results in English. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make a note that first of all, I am not trying to delete these articles to cause controversy. I merely think that this small area of Wikipedia can be improved. I encourage all improvement of all articles so that they may meet Wikipedia's standards. As for you, Shawn in Montreal, I wanted to tell you that I am glad that you found sources. Please incorporate them into all other articles, or else this article may be deleted. Carwile2 (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't entirely agree, per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Even if additional WP:RS aren't added, but are seen to exist, that is typically considered sufficient to keep, regardless of the current state of the article. But let's see what consensus is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a shame that the English-language Kuwait Times has no un-broken links: what a lousy job of web-archiving they do, beause Gnews did reveal some articles. And I should point out that my Arabic search results include a school of the same name, and other things. I'm still for keep, as it seems to be an historic market. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still for Delete, but if the article should make stand through this test, I propose that we move it to the name of which it is most commonly referred. Carwile2 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be Souk, Souq or even Al-Mubarakeya Market, I guess. And I think the hyphen is missing, too. But we can also just recreate redirects, for alternate names or spellings, if need be. And then list those alternate names in the lead, per Wikipedia:ALTERNATIVETITLE#Treatment_of_alternative_names. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Shawn in Montreal. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shawn of Montreal and the sources found with the alternate spelling. WP:GNG and WP:AFD require the existence of sources, not that they be place the article or even available online.--Oakshade (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Remy

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

This page on Jared Remy should be deleted because Wikipedia's page on biographies of a living person specifically notes that, "[a] person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." In this case, the subject is notable only as an individual accused of a crime with no other notable characteristics. As such, this is an inflammatory article that should be deleted.SantoTrafficante18 (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — SantoTrafficante18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 September 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undone; it's currently at the wrong name. Can be redone once it's moved. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:25, 18 September 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 September 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – First nomination was closed as “no consensus” less than 24 hours ago. The norm is to wait at least two months before re-nominating a page. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, multiple events. And what Hirolovesswords said. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close AfD begun too soon after previous. The nom appears inexperienced in AfD procedure. --- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Alpha Epsilon Philippines - International

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

Doesn't appear to be notable; it is unaffiliated with Sigma Alpha Epsilon and searching for "Sigma Alpha Epsilon Philippines" turns up lots of results for North American SAE members in the Philippines during WWII but nothing on this group except for invisionfree forums, wordpress blogs, a tripod website and their official site, all of which contain the exact same information. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS to be found. –H T D 19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Sai

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

Seems to have notoriety rather than notability. The article appears to be part of a WP:SOAPBOX over the incident of the death of two boys (see the only current reference) There are BLP issues here. There is currently a discussion here over the matter (which will be archived in due course). Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't discriminate against notorious people. Topic has tons of sources. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] .. they keep going if needed. These are mostly articles from the past couple weeks. If pressed it wouldn't be hard to find tons of coverage. It seems like the nom might be concerned the article was created in bad faith, but I'm not seeing soapbox with so much press coverage that supports notability. It might be possible to argue a merge to Asaram Bapu if the only notoriety of the son is in connection to the father's criminal case. But the press seems concerned with him for more than that, reporting on his helicopter crash and other things. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user Green Cardamon is right. also GNG should cover it.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bartlett

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

Article that reads like an advertisement over a youth actor. Backed up by sources from his own school, of which one never mentions his name. So in fact just one (mentioned twice) related source. Google returns mostly hits on social media. Conclusion: fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 16:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not think we can have articles on every actor who gets parts in provincial playhouses. He has a good list of credits for his yeoung age and we may hear more of him, but he is still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peterkingiron. This young man has made a promising start, but doesn't yet have enough coverage in reliable sources to come anywhere near meeting WP:BIO. There are no independent sources at all, and article is based on sources from his school, so it inevitably ends up looking a promotional piece. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intent (Android)

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

Basically a dicdef, which should be covered if at all in some more substantive article on how Android works. bd2412 T 14:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important topic in Android, which is covered in all of the numerous books on android development (see Google books search). I wouldn't oppose a merge to an article on the Android software architecture model (or whatever you want to call it), but I can't see a suitable article. Plenty of scope for expansion, covering how the operating system handles intents, what commonly used intents are available, how they compare to features in other OSes, etc, without falling into WP:HOWTO territory. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because it's covered by guides as part of a larger topic does not mean every object in programming needs a Wikipedia article. It might warrant a brief mention in an appropriate article, but it doesn't need a standalone article as it fails WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (we have reliable sources) and WP:NOTPAPER (there's no limit to the amount of knowledge we can support), or merge if a suitable article is found per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Beyond its description in numerous technical books, intents were a big deal at the early stages of Android when compared to the iPhone, as they allowed the user to choose which application to use for each action; press coverage for that era noted this as an achievement that establishes its relevance. Diego (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of technical information. Main Android page can mention this minor topic if needed. jni (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a merge and redirect, then? The article title is a likely search term when using the search suggestions. (Although I think this detailed technical description would be undue weight for the already long main article). Diego (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference from the ACM conference that received about 145 citations, as well as expanded the stub with references from various publishers. Diego (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a brief entry in a book about a marginally related subject still doesn't change the inappropriateness of such a subject having a standalone entry, nor does it muster enough to pass WP:GNG at all. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you say may very well be true in general, but it doesn't apply to this article as it does not describe the situation of sources for this topic. Receiving coverage in the world's major conference in computing makes this a non-random topic. Diego (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually describes the references pefectly; trivial incidental mentions only. It would be "coverage" at a conference if reliable sources reported that coverage; merely being mentioned at a conference does not attribute towards notability...why would it? - Aoidh (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tape replay keyboard

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

Unreferenced original research that duplicates a number of other articles such as Mellotron, Chamberlin, Birotron, and even Optigan (which doesn't use tapes so shouldn't be mentioned here). While you might think the topic is notable, I can't find any reliable sources that document the genre of tape replay keyboards as a whole outside of Mellotron or Chamberlin. It seems an unlikely search term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be books about this stuff such as Vintage Synthesizers. As there were several brands and models, it seems reasonable to have an umbrella article. Warden (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got Mark Vail's book, and there are a few paragraphs about non-Mellotron competitors, but again it's all within the context of that instrument, rather than the genre as a whole. Another possibility is we could redirect to either Sampling (music) or Sample-based synthesis, both of which already has a cursory mention of this technology, and expand it. That would work for me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texpatriate

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

Non-notable blog lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Blog is absolutely notable. Is regularly referenced and mentioned in the 2nd most circulated (on Sundays) newspaper in the United States. Receives mentions from other huge Texas political power players such as Texas Tribune and Texas Monthly. The precedent has been set on political blogs in Texas with Burnt Orange Report. If BOR is considered notable, then Texpatriate should be considered notable as well. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Notability is defined by Wikipedia standards in WP:N and WP:WEB. Trivial mentions do not support notability. There are no precedents in Wikipedia, only compliance with standards. If the article you referenced does not meet Wikipedia criteria, then it should be nominated for deletion.reddogsix (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The mentions are not trivial, the reputable news sources write featured stories on news items the blog has broken. That isn't trivial. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think you are mistaken in the use of the word trivial. The stories the news organizations create may not be trivial, but the mention of the blog is. reddogsix (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Again, you are the one mistaken. The second largest newspaper in the country broke a story because of an article from this blog. It was not a trivial mention. The paper, as well as other notable publications (Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly & Burnt Orange Report), regularly mention the blog. A one-time occurrence would constitute a trivial mention, but recurring mentions, even fleeting ones, establish notability. Houstonbuildings (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide the example you cite of the non-trivial mention in the article. I suggest you read WP:GNG for clarification. reddogsix (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-reddogsix, did you just delete a comment by someone else? Houstonbuildings (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, a comment written by a SPA and signed using my signature that was not my comment. I see that as vandalism. More importantly, I again ask you to please provide the example you refer to of the non-trivial mention in the article. reddogsix (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize for mistakenly using your signature Reddogsix. I thought it was a type of formatting for messages, similar to the formatting of a citation. I am sorry you consider it vandalism and please note that it was not my intention, it was a mistake and it won't be repeated. If you'll recall, my username was used in that signature; I genuinely thought this was a format I was supposed to follow with my comment. As for the defense of Texpatriate, or Texpate, the Houston Chronicle's website Chron.com shows twelve search results, the most recent ten of which are texpate.com itself, where the Texpate site is mentioned. These references have been frequent, 10 times over five months and fairly evenly dispersed [46]. The Houston Chronicle's website is the 1,107th most viewed website in the world and #348 in the U.S. according to Alexa, a site/organization who specializes in such analytic data [[ttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chron.com#trafficstats]. Here is the Texpate reference from the Burnt Orange Report [47] and the texpate.com link is hyperlinked with the text "introductory ad," and that is under the sub-title Mayor, paragraph 3 line 1. That hyperlink should direct you to a texpate.com page referenced here [48]. If there are any errors in my comment do not delete it again. Instead tell me how I need to amend my comment.Jaseblake (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)— Jaseblake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Thanks for the explanation.

Sorry, but these are trivial mentions. #1 - the searches are all minimal, comments such as "Texpatriate notes", "I agree with Texpatriate," or a copy of the Texpatriate text. These are not non-trivial per Wikipedia guidelines. #2 does not even mention Texpatriate - and therefore is not a valid reference. #3 - is a self-reference, not not independent or verifiable - not usable as a reference. None of these are valid, non-trivial references. Additionally, the Houston Chronicle's notability is not inheritable by Texpatriate. reddogsix (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing about Texpatriate. The references to the blog in newspapers actually does contribute to notability, but per WP:GNG we also need some sourcing about Texpatriate. In the Burnt Orange Report article, notice the quotes that say something about the organization itself. That's really what we need, someone to write something about Texpatriate (in multiple reliable sources). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since [[Off the Kuff] (the sister page nominated for deletion alongside this one) has been confirmed as an article, I believe it is important to now note the close relationship between the blogs, which most days includes giving each other material. For example, Off the Kuff discussed a State Representative deciding against a Statewide campaign this morning, referencing Texpatriate as its source for the material. As some basic research may show, Texpatriate broke the same news on September 11th, four full days earlier. The same thing happened just last Thursday, when Off the Kuff noted in this article an article from Texpatriate as its source, published on the same action a few days earlier. The notability speaks for itself. Houstonbuildings (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Almost none of the 'keep' arguments were based on Wikipedia policy and thus hold no weight. —Darkwind (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frink

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

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

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

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

Article describes a lightweight programming language that has been under development since 2001. The two reliable sources are a workshop presentation in 2004 and a Linux Format Magazine "Hot Pick" in 2008. Rest of the ghits are to blogs and software download sites. Interesting project, but nowhere close to the amount of coverage required by WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Found a couple reliable sources, but 'significant coverage' is lacking. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for me. It has an active user base and fills an otherwise unfilled niche. Brian (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. It is a well-structured article. In addition to the sources in the article, there was a presentation at the Emerging Languages Camp 2010 and Frink has a number of entries at Rosetta Code and even a Perl module, but I don't think any of these serve as in-depth, independent, reliable sources counting toward notability. There is no prejudice toward recreation if reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frink inspired my Clojure library Frinj https://github.com/martintrojer/frinj/ and Scala library Frins https://github.com/martintrojer/frins/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martintrojer (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)— Martintrojer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep While it is indeed a rarely used language, I think its article should be kept; even if there is no prejudice to recreation, the barrier is much higher than adding sources to an existing article, especially one that is, as Mark pointed out, well-structured and has at least some sources. The language has been used by the winning team of DEF CON's Crash and Compile contest a couple of times and users of it ranked highly on Project Euler for quite a while. I have to admit that I'm somewhat biased because I've used the language a couple of times and really like it, but I think I'd argue the same for any decently designed relatively young programming language, despite WP:NSOFT. Jwiechers (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frink the Language has been around since 2001, it is actively and periodically maintained, there is a port for even the most ancient mobile OSs (such as Symbian System 8), and Frink contains innovative features such as an implementation of interval arithmetic (with units of measure). It is not open source, though and therefore there is, and there will always be, a small user community. — 139.17.114.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:16, 11 September 2013‎ (UTC).[reply]
- Interval arithmetic was innovative when Pascal-XSC was written for the Zilog Z80, which is why multiple books were written about it. [49][50][51] Frink's implementation may be even better, but it's not encyclopedic until reliable sources become available. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frink inspired me to create an online unit database and calculator, Halculon http://www.updike.org/halculon/ . As others mentioned, as unit-based or physical-based programming languages go, where is Frink's equal? There are plenty of other, less useful obscure programming languages on wikipedia. What purpose does deletion serve? And how notable can niche programming languages really be? PureJadeKid (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do IT support for structural engineers and this language will save someone's life some day. I think that innocent-until-proven-guilty should prevail in this instance. My username is only coincidental. FrinkLabs (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This programming language is outstanding. I chose to teach it as part of my Programming Languages class at Indiana University Southeast: http://homepages.ius.edu/jfdoyle/c311/syllabusc311spring2011.htm This language was used to win the programming contest at Def Con not once but twice! I regularly use the web interface for Frink to do unit conversions. JD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Purple Horseshoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the people who came to this page seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia articles get deleted when people pass a negative moral judgement on the subject of the article. This is not the case. Wikipedia has standards for articles and this article - irrespective of the merits of what it describes - does not meet Wikipedia's article standards. It should be deleted for now. Someone who cares about the subject of the article can read Wikipedia's guidelines and write a new article in compliance with those guidelines at any time, if in fact that is possible. The referenced sources being cited do not meet Wikipedia reliable sources criteria so other sources must be found. Right now there are no good sources identified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability criteria is significant coverage in more than one reliable sources. The nom has cited two sources. ~KvnG 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FEZamterdam

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

Dutch fashion company that doesn't (yet) meet the notability criteria for companies. Current sources include several fashion blogs. A search for sources in news on on the web for reviews did not turn up anything. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article title is spelled incorrectly, but the search terms above for sources have been corrected. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability whatsoever that I could see, even with a space between Fez and Amsterdam, which only brought up flights, travel guides, and a 1866 travelogue (I think). Just a promotional page for a company which does not pass notability at this point in time. Mabalu (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andra Day

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

Too soon, basically; created direct to article space (by account that never did anything else) rather than going via AFC, sourced to subject's own Facebook page and interviews - and those describe her as "up and coming". When the album's out perhaps it will be notable (or perhaps Day will vanish into obscurity). Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She does appear to be signed to a major label (Warner Bros.), but I'm not seeing much significant coverage in reliable sources for this person: a Rolling Stone interview and a paragraph in Billboard are the best I could find. Gong show 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some people signed to major labels are never heard from again; WP:MUSICBIO says "two albums from a major label", presumably to avoid this issue. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep - being signed, on its own, does not make one notable for our purposes, which is where the coverage comes in. She seems to be (as Billboard would put it) "bubbling under" in that regard, as well. Gong show 18:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chadhar

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Chadhar is certainly used as a last name and also refers to an item of clothing similar to a sheet ... but I can find nothing but mirrors, a single unreliable book published by Gyan and discussion forums that potentially refer to it as a tribe. Sitush (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 19:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)}.[reply]

Speedy Keep Needs expansion not deletion. History of Chander can be found here. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,more links These sources establish WP:GNG of the subject of the article. List of people with Chander or Chandler surname. Anup Mehra ^✈ 11:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misread the article. It concerns an Indian community called Chadhar, not a Anglo one called Chander or variants thereof. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I misread the title and wasted 40mins finding sources and expanding the article. Thanks for correcting me. The article is now supported by two reliable sources. There's many more and I still insist following the availability of multiple sources that the subject of the articles passes Wikipedia general notability guideline. The article needs expansion not deletion. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra - I've removed those sources because they were lists based on unreliable British Raj sources with no verification that they even referred to the same community (different spellings etc). You've also agreed that you were using the Google Books snippet view when assessing them and that is simply not good enough. - Sitush (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, Yeah I've noticed that you keep removing each and every source(s), I add to the article to verify WP:GNG criteria of the subject of the article, declaring them all as British Raj sources. Can you please be more specific(or logical) to this British Raj source term? You seems to be declaring each and every source(s) as British Raj source and hence unreliable and it is just because you say so? For eg., The last source you removed, is this, written by, Kumar Suresh Singh and published by Anthropological Survey of India in 1996. The year 1966 doesn't belong to British era, neither does the author Kumar Suresh Singh, How is this a 'British Raj source' then and hence unreliable? Please explain! An another source, Author, A.P. Thakur and publishing house, Global Vision Publishing Ho, 2005. How is this not a reliable source? Next regarding snippet view, Does Google decide whether a source is reliable or not? Like this one, page 418 deals with the tribe, Chadhar but google doesn't even have preview for a single page. So, It is a perfect reason to categorize it as unreliable source? Well, at least WP:RS doesn't say so. And as I've earlier been said, there are other multiple sources exist that easily establish the notability of the subject of the article. Needs expansion not deletion. Notability should not be a reason to delete this article. If there's some other problem related to this article, please bring them up. Anup Mehra ^✈ 15:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that you cannot see more of the People of India sources otherwise you would already know that they are mostly reprints of the Raj stuff written by such discredited amateur ethnologists as H. H. Risley. In this specific instance, it looks like it might be Denzil Ibbetson or just possibly H. A. Rose. Of course, no snippet view is acceptable anyway. As for Global Vision, I'm sure that I've already explained that publisher is a known mirror of Wikipedia content - there are probably some examples at WP:MIRROR and WP:RSN - and even if it were not a mirror, its output does not stand up to scrutiny.

It seems likely that you are relatively new to sourcing caste-related articles and that is causing you to have difficulties with regard to what constitutes a reliable source. What is more worrying is your continued belief that snippet views are ok for anything even though they lack context and in this specific instance do not even spell the name in the same way - perhaps you should read WP:V and WP:OR also in order to get a better understanding. It is also not enough for our notability criteria that a community which may or may not exist happens to appear in some random list. Until you find a source that is reliable and actually discusses this community then the article has no place here, bearing in mind also such issues such as sanskritisation and more general trends of fusion and fission among Indian communities. This stuff has been discussed to death across umpteen caste-related articles, at WT:INB, at WP:RSN, WP:DRN and even the drama board that is WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - participants in this discussion might also care to read my comment here. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:Hey! Did you read all these before suggesting it all to me? Like, WP:MIRROR, WP:RSN, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:INB, WP:RSN, DRN, and WP:ANI. If not. Take a day or two day or even a month and read or re-read again. I would like to let you know that none of them say anything or something related to British raj source. And re-read my previous comment, I said this, written by, Kumar Suresh Singh not H. H. Risley, Denzil Ibbetson or H. A. Rose and published Anthropological Survey of India in 1996. How is this a 'British Raj source' and hence unreliable? Does some wiki project says publisher Anthropological Survey of India uses British raj source(s)? Or the author Kumar Suresh Singh? If yes, redirect me to that particular wiki project page. If not, then please don't be imposing your personal opinion. You try to keep your own version of article and debate on the same, by keep removing sources added by me. Should I believe all just because you say so? Hmm.. I could not. Please be more specific with the term British raj sources. Please present the particular wiki project/guidelines regarding it, not some other tons of wiki projects nothing not related with the subject. And snippet view, I've some sort of references related to the subject of the article, and Google doesn't hold the preview of them. WP:RS doesn't say that, It is the only those books having full view on Google books would be considered reliable. Believe me, I read all. And I suggest you to do, as well. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all of those and more - I've been here for a while and am among the most experienced contributors to articles relating to caste. I also wrote Kumar Suresh Singh and our article on the People of India publications, as well as completely rewriting H. H. Risley etc, so I'm familiar with the writers as well as what they wrote. You are not dealing with an idiot here but short of canvassing people to comment, which is frowned upon, there is not much more I can do except appeal to your good faith and common sense. You're wrong, even if you do not realise it. When I'm dealing with someone who continues to make such basic mistakes as consistently mistaking the name "Chander" for "Chandler" (as recently as 24 hours ago and despite previously been told of the mistake) then I can only hope that the person who closes this discussion can recognise the disparity in competence between us, sorry. We are all supposed to be equal here but competence is required. I'm happy to help you learn our ways but an AfD is a difficult venue in which to do that. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: You just seem to be imposing your own personal views onto others. You say, Wiki policies say this, but when do I ask for that particular Wiki Project page, You go silent. Isn't it? WP:RS does not say anything such as, In order to verify reliability of a source that is a book, it must have a full preview on Google, but you said so. I asked for the Wiki project page dealing with, British raj sources, Look what you did you give, this→(WP:MIRROR, WP:RSN, WP:V,WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:INB, WP:RSN, DRN, and WP:ANI). None of the texts of the above page matches British raj sources. I asked you to redirect me to page that says, Anthropology Survey of India or Kumar Suresh Singh uses British raj sources, read your own last comment, what did you answer, you said, You just know it. Isn't it like, You want to spread your own version of knowledge based on nothing? I've no intention to follow your words blindly. Show me the source(s) in support of your line of reasoning. And about Chander and Chandler, I invite you to start a new discussion page related to Chander andChandler on the related page not here. You call me mistaken just because you want to. An another example of imposing personal view. Show me the source/reference(s) in support of your claim. You seem to be biting new comers, I'm not sure if someone already have been told you. Anup Mehra ^✈ 13:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the archives to WP:RSN generally, read WP:MIRROR for additional stuff about Global Vision, and read WP:COMMONSENSE wrt snippet views. Or, as an example, this recent comment about the latter. There is not much I can do to convince you that the People of India stuff is crap and relies on (often unattributed) Raj sources if you cannot see the damn books in the first place, so you will just have to AGF in someone who does indeed have a vast amount of experience in this field and has seen the books. Blimey, you cannot even read my nomination correctly, so there is not much good faith likely to extend in the opposite direction: your Google search link refers to items mentioned in the intro, ie: mirrors, poor sources, and stuff that relates to clothing and a surname. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple publications ([52], [53], [54]) show at least that this caste (also spelled Chaddar) do exist but none of these are even close to establishing notability as required by GNG. I would suggest a redirect if it can be established that it is a sub-caste of a notable caste (that has an entry here), but none of the sources I have seen say so. --SMS ^Talk 21:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs expansion not deletion. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you propose that we expand something that has no apparent significant mention in reliable sources and the claims of any source for which seem to be making an assumption that the article title is an uncommon transliteration? There is nothing to prevent creation of an article under a preferred transliteration if notability can be demonstrated. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've just spotted that you've made only 35 contributions since you have registered your account. Please accept my apologies if the above sounds harsh. Some relevant policies to consider are WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skales (Ninjago)

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

Non-notable character from a possibly non-notable television show. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 18:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the complete lack of sources. It's likely most sources (especially those required to verify the long tracts of plot-related text) would be in-universe anyway - I couldn't find any that weren't. I wouldn't strongly oppose a merge to Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu though I have concerns about the notability of that TV show. I would ordinarily suggest a merge to Lego Ninjago but that article is itself the subject of a merger discussion and I wouldn't want to derail that. Stalwart111 07:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Adams

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

While this article was previously deleted in the past, it doesn't qualify for speedy as a repost of deleted content — she's gotten promoted from "fill-in anchor" to "full-time anchor", so it is making a different notability claim than it did in 2006. That said, it still isn't a particularly strong claim of notability (she's still just a local news anchor in a single television market) and neither is it a properly referenced one (its only active source is her biography on the webpage of the television station she works for, which is a primary source.) As always, I'm willing to consider withdrawing this nomination if someone can Heymann it up to a keepable standard with real references, but in its current form it's a pretty clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a local news media anchor, she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of emulators. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DAPHNE

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

This program does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of emulators. Wikipedia does not seem to have any list of arcade machine emulators, so it's difficult to recommend a proper home. I recommend against merging/redirecting into List of video game console emulators, as this does not emulate video game consoles. Deletion is also acceptable, but I think this might come up as a search term. I'll see about trying to give List of emulators an appropriate section for arcade machine emulators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau des Avocats Internationaux

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

Contested PROD. Does not appear to be a noteworthy law office. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to IJDH article I don't see enough sources to justify this article's existence. As a side note, there are ongoing problems with self-promotion by the BAI and related organization IJDH on a number of pages, often posting nonneutral summaries of causes or trials with which they're involved; I've had to talk to at least three accounts of self-identified staff members about this, and presumably some of the other single-purpose accounts that have edited on those pages involved. Everything related to the IJDH should be watched closely. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Hall (University of Notre Dame)

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

College residence hall with no articular distinction,architectural or otherwise. The content of the article is, as would be expected, totally unencyclopedic , with no possible interest except to current or previous residents--most of it is about the residents' intramural sports and minor charitable activites. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:OPPOSE DELETE Notability for Siegfried Hall is gained through the ESPN article as well as the citation to WNDU. Siegfried Hall has been in the news once again http://www.wndu.com/hometop/headlines/Attempted_stabbing_inside_a_Notre_Dame_dorm_135005763.html. The article should be expanded to provide a larger context for the dorm life through the generosity of the Siegfried family. The independent student newspaper recently covered the importance of the Siegfried family and their architectural legacy to the University.

Additionally, can you please expand on what you mean by "articular distinction"? Based on the common definition of articular as "dealing with joints", my short explanation above shows that Siegfried Hall is encyclopedic.

66.254.248.19 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame, as with the others. Neutrality^talk 20:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the redirect at least would seem appropriate, DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, yes, we can dispense with the merge, most of the useful content is already on the list page in list form. Neutrality^talk 06:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do the redirect as suggested.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Different View

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

A student blog. No evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no indication of any notability whatsoever. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to International Association for Political Science Students.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala silk

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

Giant advertisement that has little to do with silk. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ad is removable. I removed it. I don't know if the silk industry in Kerala is notable, but in many other states in India it is quite notable. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 September 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is close to an essay and is sourced only to a blog entry. Any substantial content on silk industries in Kerala could be added to Silk in the Indian subcontinent but would really need reliable references first - perhaps this, but it is more an announcement of intent in 2006 than a statement of what has been actually achieved. AllyD (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria G11 (advertising) and G12 (copyvio). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham pennywinkle

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS. This nomination includes the redirect Graham Pennywinkle: The 'Short' Road to Success. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (both) per nom. If sources are found let me know so I can review my opinion. Fiddle Faddle 23:03, 17 September 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 September 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is ultimately a non-notable self-published work. Although looking at the synopsis on the page and the Amazon article, this might be given a mercifully short end as copyvio and/or promotion. It's highly unlikely that this will have any sudden sources pop up to show notability, so a speedy would probably be best here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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