Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 September	3 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone telepathy[edit]

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

Appears to be sourced entirely by primary sources. It is devoid of criticism and appears to cater to proponents of the idea. I haven't found any mainstream scientific WP:RS that discuss it, only a few news articles from 2006. Not notable and runs afoul of WP:FRINGE. Even if an encyclopedic treatment were possible, it would share nothing in common with this article. Vzaak (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ~~Merge~~ Redirect to Rupert Sheldrake. Some news coverage can be useful to summarize and report this relatively minor aspect of Sheldrake's rejected precognition studies at the main bio article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the merge part. There's nothing to merge; the article just contains primary sources touting fringe, no news reports. Vzaak (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant Redirect, since the article has no useable non-primary sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Redirect to Rupert Sheldrake seems a good idea.Nickm57 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rupert Sheldrake, per LuckyLouie. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You do all realize that an article doesn't have to be deleted first before it is redirected, don't you? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know it sounds silly, but I have seen AfD's with 3 "keep", 3 "delete", 3, "redirect" and 3 "merge" closed as "no consensus", so I always include delete with a merge or redirect recommendation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the content from this page. It appears to have been written by a Sheldrake fan, and I'm afraid it comes with the territory that said author must be scientifically illiterate and incapable of basic critical thinking, and therefore incapable of implementing WP:FRINGE per WP:COMPETENCE. The article contains far too much primary data, yet very little on the design of the experiment or how this is compatible with the principles of experimental design that aim to avoid bias. The statistics merely discusses the chance of the results happening, whereas a proper statistical analysis would assess the probability that the null hypothesis is true. It also contains nothing critical of Sheldrake, which given that Sheldrake has little to no support within the scientific community, is highly surprising. Therefore deleting the content is good idea. Redirecting to Rupert Sheldrake is then a possibility, although I vote for no prejudice against recreation with better content if someone can write an article compatible with WP:FRINGE. Such an article isn't going to look good for Sheldrake. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims of "Telephone telepathy" by Sheldrake are not independently notable and are better put in the context of Sheldrake, the originator. I found some passing coverage [1] (and coverage by a blog [2]), but nothing indicative of GNG (of course meeting GNG does not require an article to exist, we can make editorial decisions based on a better presentation of something in a greater context). Not worth merging any of the content. Implausible redirect with few page views [3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rupert Sheldrake, per LuckyLouie. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:01, 7 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) 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit semantic analysis[edit]

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

The article erroneously defines the subject as being Wikipedia-specific. A Google search quickly verifies that ESA is a generic term, and is not limited to a particular corpus. The webpage http://regularlyexpressed.com/using-explicit-semantic-analysis-to-discover-meaningful-relatedness/, presents a generic definition:

Explicit Semantic Analysis (ESA) is a data-based approach to finding similarities between two text documents. The basic idea is that two documents are similar if the most important words in document A are strongly semantically related to the most important words in document B.

Please delete, as the whole article is in error and therefore miseducates readers. The Transhumanist 21:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Transhumanist 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [as nom] – delete this misinformation. A new article on the actual subject needs to be written. The Transhumanist 21:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but the nomination itself is assumed to be your !vote. I added "[as nom]" to clarify. If you don't feel this is necessary, feel free to revert. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep—We don't delete bad articles on notable subjects, we fix them. That said, (Gabrilovich 2006) is Wikipedia-specific, with generalizations of the technique left for future work. That discussion, however, should be left to the talk page of the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Erroneous AfD request: no valid reason for deletion per WP:AfD/WP:DEL is given. Content disputes are not valid reasons for deletion (unless the whole article is rendered unsalvageable nonsense, which isn't the case here). Proposer seems to accept the topic is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable, and the article is at least partially correct. If it is not fully correct, it just makes it similar to about 2 or 3 million other articles we have. Nothing warranting deletion here that I can see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's have a constructive discussion about this. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:54, 9 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) 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India Future Society[edit]

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

This was originally tagged for deletion under WP:G11. I did not feel that this was explicitly spam, but there are a number of problems with this article, making it unsalvagable. First is a lack of notablity. This organization was founded in May 2013, and I cannot find reliable sources supporting its notability. Secondly, the section "Fields of Focus" seems to be entirely original research speculation and/or possible copyright violations (the "Cyborg" subsection, for example, is a mishmash of copying from various websites. All in all, I can't see this article being kept on Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I am the author of the article. My organization IFS is a startup company and now its also recognized by the Indian government. IFS definitely has future activities planned and they will be included in the article soon after accomplishment. My organization aims to spread awareness about the future technologies and their use to increase human capacities. (Please go through our website: http://indiafuturesociety.org/) At this point of time in India there is not much acceptance of such technologies among the common mass. So our initiative will create big difference. Its my request to Wikipedia and you all,please don't nip IFS article in the bud. I assure you it will bloom soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoama (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – looks like a PR piece written by the organization itself. A Google search only shows pages posted by or referring to pages posted by the IFS itself (its Facebook page, Twitter, Linked-in, etc.). The citations in the article are not about IFS, but about subjects that IFS is interested in. Before it is eligible for coverage in Wikipedia, IFS will need to become the focus of coverage by reliable 3rd-party publications, which will happen as soon as IFS organizes a convention on futures studies, raises and directs the spending of large sums of funds for technological research, publishes a notable magazine with a sizable readership, etc. But so far, it doesn't show up as even a blip on the media's radar. Compare World Future Society. The Transhumanist 22:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 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 23:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, this is the third iteration of the article, previous two articles have been deleted for G11/G12. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 00:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The purpose of creation of page is to influence more people about term like Transhumanism in India. It's sort of promotional page but for Emerging Technology and concept like Transhumanism and Longevity. And first and only Article on Wiki from Indian background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.104.103 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Sign added by Tito☸Dutta 18:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)— 115.240.104.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Uh, a promotional page is a reason to delete, not to keep. GregJackP Boomer! 06:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But page is more for information and awareness side which sound very little like Promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.104.103 (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content style and phrasing are suspicious. And it looks like the article was cobbled together by some copyright violation, such as here and [4]. Didn't look any further, though, but I think it's enough to illustrate the point. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current content of article does not breaking any law. So article will be good to keep there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.162.159 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — 115.241.162.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. The article's creator, as well as a couple IPs, have blanked large sections of this article since the nomination and many of the above comments. Here is a diff to how the article originally appeared: [5]. Even without the various copypaste sections, it still does not address notability issues. Singularity42 (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent some time trying to bring it into line, but ended with the opinion that it was unsalvageable and unquestionably promotional. Now I realise I should have speedied it in the first place. Deb (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Promotional/Copyvio/G11 article has no place on Wikipedia. Whispe ring 03:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a promo puff piece, and sounds like it gets removed frequently... Advise the author adds once there is something notable about his company/org Jtowler (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An investigation of the Telegraph article reveals zero mention of the organisation; suffice to say, none of the sources make any sort of coverage on the subject. In addition, the article's content is replete with puffery that scraping past G11 is somewhat surprising. Socking doesn't help. Fails WP:ORG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:59, 9 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 New Hope Christian Fellowship. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Cordeiro[edit]

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

Nominated by IP address with reasons at Talk:Wayne_Cordeiro; almost unreferenced BLP, little evidence of notability other than by association with the church Pinkbeast (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not ready to make a recommendation yet, but a quick survey seems to suggest he is notable. He leads a mega-church in Honolulu and heads an evangelical organization which has "planted" more than 100 churches throughout the Pacific. I'll see what I can find in the way of sources. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a little research, Merge/Redirect to New Hope Christian Fellowship. The church is the only thing he is known for and is more notable than he is. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: either Keep or merge per MelanieN, (which will allow for easy restoration. I get a feeling from the bio that he is notable, but the statements need verification:

"helped plant" 102 churches: how involved was he in this? Do they form a network? if so, where is the denominational article?
attendence over 10,000: can this be verified, other than from sources internal to the church?
"Pacific Rim Christian Colleges" is this a formal network? If so, why does it not have an article? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to New Hope Christian Fellowship, per above. I think MelanieN is right on the money on this one. Even the items Peterkingiron pointed more seems to lead back to the church, not the man himself. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:04, 9 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 speedy delete as requested by the only substantial author (CSD G7). De728631 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hariharanpillai Happiyanu[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Could CSD it, but I'd prefer some expert attention to the question of sourcing.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No decent sources in English. I'd imagine a few websites might contain info in Malayalam but I doubt its notable. I'm happy to db-author it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 2 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 Richmond, Virginia#Education. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Bridget School[edit]

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

middle school, no apparent references out there for notability. The city article which it would be a plausible redirect to seems to have a consensus to only list notable schools. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or possibly redirect to Richmond, Virginia#Education, although that would be a bit off-putting. Ansh6 6 6 21:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable school. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable school, but I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Richmond, Virginia#Education. T C N7JM 03:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richmond, Virginia#Education. Non notable middle school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. We routinely do this, and we treat all cities equally. The city is in any case large enough that a spin out article on Education in Richmond could be reasonably created. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:51, 9 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) 22:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Art Rating[edit]

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

WP:NBOOK Non-notable rating publication of 50,000 artists that is only useful commercially and adds no educational value about art and only includes basic information on the included artists. Could possibly be merged with the mother organization Artists Trade Union of Russia, but that doesn't strike me as being notable either. Considering that over half of the ratings in this publication are for beginning artists who will never be notable in their rated roles, I think deletion is in order. Jane (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related AfD's Mario Zampedroni and Sergey Zagraevsky. Jane (talk) 19:20, 2 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 2. Snotbot t • c » 19:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Additionally, the article was deleted as a result of AfD discussion in the Russian Wikipedia, and the discussion failed to establish notability either.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Looks like a legitimate project, there are no fees for entry ([6] #23). But it's WP:TOOSOON to establish notability. --Green Cardamom (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No fees for entry, but clearly fees for usage, as this database appears to be in book form only. Wikipedians will never use it, because larger and widely available commercial artist directories like artnet are online services that offer free lookup by last name, free thumbnails of art (including recent art that Wikipedia cannot host), and free metadata such as approximate birth-death dates and nationality. Jane (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have digital access for a small fee.[7] There are libraries, and many reliable sources are only available as books, quite expensive ones too. Just because artnet has a free online index doesn't mean every other art index has to follow the same business model, or that Wikipedian's will never use books or pay for online access to a database (and many databases are available free through libraries). My point was, this resource does not appear to be a vanity press/vanity award scam, which typically require pay-to-enter (like Who's Who). They require no fee for inclusion nor solicit entrants. Rather it's just WP:TOOSOON to establish notability. It may never be notable. Or it may one day be the leading resourced, we have no crystal ball. Let's not demonize it unfairly just because it's not a free database. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:09, 4 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 withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos in Uganda[edit]

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

~~This article, currently one sentence long, contains no real information, nor does it have any sources.~~ Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination in light of the fact that Colonel Warden has rewritten the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But does an unsourced short article mean it's not notable? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is a notable ethnic group, then somebody else can write this article again at a later date when they have actual information to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't put off to tomorrow what you can do today. Warden (talk) 12:33, 3 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 Speedy deleted by User:Someguy1221 under WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 07:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sequans Communications[edit]

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

This appears to likely be another Morning277 article— article creator has a string of these in his contributions list, and this one looks no different. References are either not independent, include only trivial mentions, or refer to dubious "news" sources such as seekingalpha.com. I propose that it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 2 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 Azhar College. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar College, Akurana, Kandy[edit]

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

Duplicate of Azhar College that I redirected to that article, but which the article's creator is insistently reverting to being a duplicate article (presumably in an effort to predisambiguate). I'm looking for a "redirect" result rather than a "delete" here; but I'll take a "delete", and it's better to get a consensus than to edit-war. Deor (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom (note: the redirect has actually been reversed as of this statement). Seeing as there are no other "Azhar College" pages on en-wiki, I think it's safe to say that nom's preferred redirecting is better. Ansh6 6 6 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Azhar College. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Azhar College. Azhar College's much longer edit history should be preserved.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:18, 7 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) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gigablast[edit]

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

Not notable. References consist of Alexa figures, Wikipedia, Google search pages, PRNewsWire, and WP:SPS. GNews shows PR releases by the company. GBooks have limited coverage, nothing in depth. Previously deleted by AfD: Promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep

There are many notable sources with good coverage:

The ACM Queue (Association for Computing Machinery) is a highly respected journal/organization in Computer Science [8] .

Business 2.0 is very popular and respected: [9]

The NSA (Nation Security Administration) Spy Training Manual: [10]

And it is not true that no Google books results provide in-depth coverage. Here is one of quite a few from Google Books that does: [11]

FURTHERMORE, even if you dispute whether or not these articles are in-depth, the wikipedia page on "in depth" at

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH#Primary_criteria] indicates that multiple independent sources referencing a topic is a good substitute for lack of depth in any one article: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Thus the shear numbers of references to Gigablast in the book search (over 1000 results), web search (over one million results), etc. are good enough, and you can't argue that about one million results for the query 'gigablast' on google is not notable enough.

The previous deletion of the Gigablast page in 2008 was shown to be affiliated with a malicious IP whose account has since been deleted for being abusive: User:Ecoleetage

And there is no evidence the page is promotional.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2 September 2013‎ (UTC) — Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GregJackP, though I agree that press releases (as from PRNewsWire) and the Gigablast help page do not establish notability. However, the Steve Kirsch interview in ACM Queue is I believe a good indication of notability. It is also discussed in Maura D. Shaw, Mastering Online Research: A Comprehensive Guide to Effective and Efficient Search Strategies, and many other books on web search and SEO, as well as almost all Web sites about search engines and SEO. True, its audience is tiny compared to Google or Bing, but I think it's an interesting part of the search engine history and ecosystem. I don't see what in the article makes you consider it "promotional". --Macrakis (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD said it was promotional - it was a typo above, since corrected. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was copied into mainspace by Wiki12rt, a single-purpose account (SPA) almost surely affiliated with Gigablast. The COI SPA has violated Wikipedia community norms both while putting the article into mainspace and afterwards. The article needs work, in Macrakis's user space, before we can even consider whether or not it is acceptable in mainspace. For now, it reads like a press release and seems more like one-sided journalism than balanced journalism. Please delete per CSD G11 for now. If Wiki12rt leaves Wikipedia, never to return, then perhaps we can work further on the article in userspace then discuss whether it's acceptable in mainspace or not. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* I did not initiate the article nor did i originally put it into mainspace. An account that was ultimately banned as an abusive user was responsible for deleting it in 2008. User:Ecoleetage

* What, per G11, specifically makes you think it is an advertisement or promotional? (i.e. reads like a press release? because press releases very frequently contain quotes from those involved, whereby, this article does not) If it reads like a press release then perhaps some revision is in order, but not an entire deletion, since notability has been established. Wiki12rt (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* When you say " If Wiki12rt leaves Wikipedia, never to return, then perhaps we can work further...", it hurts my feelings that you are encouraging me to leave wikipedia and never return again. Why don't you like me? -- Wiki12rt (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I didn't like you. But youI do say this: you've made some highly biased edits on Wikipedia. You're not here to build an encyclopedia: you're here to promote Gigablast. Such motives are unwelcome here. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC); last edited 05:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i'm here to build wikipedia, but, even if you don't believe me, let's agree to keep this vote and discussion limited to the true worthiness of the article, and not individual assumptions of my intentions. i.e. Attack the message NOT the messenger. -- Wiki12rt (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* What specifically about the article seems like one-sided journalism? all of it is taken practically verbatim from reliable, independent, third-party sources. -- Wiki12rt (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and non-promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevBooyah (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whether it is promotional or not is irrelevant. Whether it was created by an SPA or not is irrelevant. Unforgettableid, you need to lay off the personal attacks and general abuse, as well. It appears, from sources listed by Macrakis, that this company satisfy WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I toned down an earlier comment of mine which I wrote in my exchange with Matt above. Matt, the words I removed were foolish and wrong; I apologize for writing them. Lukeno94, if the article is promotional, this does matter: it means that people can vote "delete per G11" if they feel that such a vote is appropriate. And perhaps an argument that an article was posted by an SPA may help make clear to an on-the-fence editor that an article is promotional. About your last point: I don't believe that articles in trade or academic magazines are enough to prove notability. I believe these are included in WP:CORPDEPTH's exclusion of "media of limited interest and circulation". And, if the assertion GregJackP made in his nomination is correct, then maybe not even a single mainstream book on Google Books covers the company or their product in sufficient depth. (The NSA's Untangling the Web book may also fall under "media of limited interest and circulation".) Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from WP:CORPDEPTH is: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." There is no mention of excluding "articles in trade" or "academic magazines". Furthermore, none of the Gigablast sources given can be considered to be "local" media. The NSA isn't local. Neither is searchenginewatch.com or about.com. The ACM Queue is likely an Internationally circulated magazine. Look at the page about Association for Computing Machinery, it is one of the defacto standard sources in Computer Science. The Business 2.0 source is as well. So according to WP:CORPDEPTH the indication of notability is strong. Why are you picking on this, Unforgettableid? There are many other pages in Wikipedia with a lot less cred than this one. There are literally thousands of unique references to Gigablast on the web. Almost ALL of the search engines listed here have less references. Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself. Look at Blingo for instance.

Also, the article is not promotional because all the content is taken almost verbatim from independent, reliable, third-party sources. And G11 does not forbid promotional articles at all, what is says is this: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." So YOU have to say exactly how the article is NOT NEUTRAL. What part is biased? And how? I think i see the disconnect here. You feel that I myself am heavily biased, therefore the article I re-entered into mainspace must be heavily biased. The article has to say things like "this is the greatest product ever" to count as being biased. Granted, a lot of newly created pages are, but this is not one of them.

In case you like the fact that Blingo's one reference from PC Magazine was a good thing, I just added a couple references from PC Magazine to the Gigablast page. Maybe it would be faster if you tell me what sources you are required to see and I will try to get the article they wrote about Gigablast.

here's a link to perhaps 10,000 articles written about Gigablast from various third-party sources on google's news archive search. just dig through there and find whatever source tickles your fancy then add it to the Gigablast page: googles news archive search for gigablast

Please consider the new references added to the Gigablast page as well: PC World, Albuquerque Tribune, Boston Globe, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 04:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt. Fair point about the competition. I just nominated Thiv for speedy deletion (it's been deleted now) and Vivisimo for regular deletion. If you see any others that look like press releases, please say so. But not here: only at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gigablast (2nd nomination). That page is on my watchlist.

Lots of articles can qualify for G11. Any page which fails G11 can be kept, or can be nominated for deletion. It's up to our discretion.

I am picking on Gigablast because I know there's a COI editor hanging around the article. If you had never edited, and had simply had User:Macrakis move his article into mainspace, I think I would never have nominated Gigablast for deletion.

I, personally, would like to see several mainstream published sources which each include at least one lengthy paragraph — preferably more — about Gigablast. The New York Times or The Globe and Mail would do. PC Magazine, PC World, Macworld, or similar? Probably also fine. But each of those several sources needs to include enough information about Gigablast in it. From what I can see, neither of your PC Magazine sources qualify.

Ideally, never edit the article at all. You can post sources here, or you can put edit requests on the article's talk page. Either would be fine.

If I could somehow get an ironclad assurance that you would never edit the article again, ever, I would probably edit the article and remove COI material. COI-free articles are immune from G11 deletion. Maybe you could speak to some administrator — perhaps Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) — and tell them who you are (I insist on this); then try asking them to ban you from that article page (but not the talk page) forever.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not nominate Vivisimo for deletion. That is an important part of the search culture. They sold to IBM for over $100M dollars allegedly. To delete that page would be hurting Wikipedia and its historical accounts of the alternative search engine space.
Stop calling me Matt. Call me by my username.
You can't just delete articles that are within Wikipedia guidelines. It just isn't fair.
I don't think G11 means what you think it means. I'm not harping on you, but consider this note in definition from CSD G11 : "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion". And if you click on "neutral point of view" the definition for that is: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". So in order to play the G11 card you have to point out what part of the information was not represented fairly or proportionately in the Gigablast article. It says nothing about allowing you to play the G11 card for COI. If there were such a rule it would say that employees or affiliates of a company can not edit the wikipedia page for that company. So you are definitely stretching the definition into a place it was not meant to go, in order to further your own agenda.
Why doesn't the first PC Magazine article qualify? It's a lengthy paragraph about Gigablast.
Why are several such high profile sources now required (for you personally) for a Wikipedia page to be notable even though this is not in the Wikipedia guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you suspect a COI, you can't delete an article because of it. Here is Wikipedia's stance on COI: "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "I would probably edit the article and remove COI material". Exactly what would you remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The PC Magazine ~~and PR News Wire~~ references are sufficient to establish notability. In its current state, the article is not unduly promotional. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PR NewsWire ref is a press release. So it fails WP:SPS and does not contribute to notability. The policy page WP:V has a footnote which discusses press releases; please see it. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new reference from techcrunch.com (which gets significantly more traffic than pcmag.com, a source you believe to be mainstream) and the ACM Queue reference (an academic magazine - unforgettableid, it seems you have changed your mind and now believe academic magazines are good sources) are plenty 'nuff to float the boat here. I think you will agree they are "mainstream" enough. I also added a nytimes.com, wsj.com and cnet.com references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken in my previous thinking that academic sources were never okay. I have not clicked through to the Queue article nor evaluated it to see whether or not it proves notability. It's late; I think I want to go to bed soon. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's an entire article a few pages long about Gigablast. Also, after I added ONLY references from Techcrunch, NYT and WSJ to the Gigablast page you posted a threatening note on my user page. Please stop this behaviour. It is intimidating and mentally affects me and it is against Wikipedia's policy on harassment. You have been harassing me with these warnings on my Talk page, calling me Matt, and telling me to leave Wikipedia and never come back. I really am feeling that I am unwelcome here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions page indicates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. People not here to build an encyclopedia — even if they're wonderful, kind, and generous people — are unwelcome here. Still, I have removed the level-3 user-warning template I put on your user page. Even though you're an SPA user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, a reasonable case could be made that the template was unwarranted. (Please note that the templates act as tracking devices: administrators often will refuse to block a user who has not reached level 4.) The New York Times article you cited seems not to constitute significant coverage; I have edited the article and annotated the reference to reflect this fact. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to build a better Wikipedia. I am not an SPA, I've stood up for quality pages like Vivisimo, and others, which you are trying to delete, which would hurt Wikipedia. You just now edited the Gigablast page and inserted a bunch of negative bias and criticism. Now it seems a lot less neutral. You can't nominate a page for deletion because you think it is non-neutral, then add a bunch of non-neutral elements to it. This behaviour is outrageous. How can any page get a "fair trial" when you desecrate it during the voting period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.3.61 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay to add properly-sourced criticism to Wikipedia articles. The criticism I added cites the New York Times and is properly-sourced. If you want the Gigablast article deleted, simply cross out your "keep" vote above, including your explanation, and vote "delete" just below the explanation. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this policy summary for details. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:59, 11 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. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Chance (film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFILMS this is not yet notable as it has not received extensive coverage from third-party reliable sources. Redirected page to parent production company Syco but was reverted as were attempts to tag the page using {{notability}}. Generally my understanding that pages should not be created in anticipation of notability, but rather if/when the becom7e notable. An unsourced cast-list with one sentence on a premier and one sentence regarding the soundtrack is not notable per WP:GNG. It should be worked on in a sandbox or at a later stage when more information is available. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC?

Keep Clearly this novice user has never read WP:BEFORE. This film will premiere in 7 days at one of the most notable film festivals. A quick Google search of the film title and either the director or "star" show dozens and dozens of results, easily meeting WP:N. I've tried discussing this with this newbie, but they revert my edits on their talkpage. I don't understand the rationale for redirecting to Syco, whatever that is. Why not the director's page? Infact, no real rationale for redirecting has been presented without discussion on the article's talkpage. I've gone to the effort of spending a few minutes of using Google, finding references and expanding the article. It's not that hard to do. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment you have never tried to discuss the article with me you simply told me you didnt care that id pointed you to WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS, you simply posted a disruption warning with no explanation. When I asked you to clarify why the article was notable (pointing to WP:BURDEN) you ignored, removed the notability tag and told me to go to AfD. Its evident that you enjoy the drama, you've goaded my by using terms like "novice" and "obviously". If you knew the article could be made more notable, then when you reverted my redirect, why didnt you expand the article? I could have probably handled this better but certainly I think we're supoosed to focus on the edits and not the editor. Maybe this AfD is a bad idea but certainly the response above is not in good spirit or faith. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you looked at an article that's only existed for a short while and thought "I know, this HAS to be redirected!". No discussion, no rationale, nothing. I'll correct you (again). I didn't say "didn't care" but that I didn't care about how long you've been editing here. It's not relevant. And when have I said "obviously" too? I haven't. You made no attempt to source the article before bringing it here. Have a read of WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the film has not been released has no bearing on its notability. There are lots of reliable sources covering it ([12] [13] [14]) and they will no doubt increase when it is screened. Plus, it has finished production, so it can't be deleted under that, either. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough references to easily pass WP:GNG OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

SNOW KEEP. This nomination makes it appear that among other policies and guidelines, the nominator may not fully understand WP:N, WP:NF, WP:BEFORE, WP:NRVE, WP:PSA, WP:WIP or WP:IMPERFECT, by his redirecting without discussion an article on an arguably notable topic, not once but twice, and his actions in rather than involving in discussion, chosing to nominate the stub article. Yes, its not released "yet" but the topic is an easily acceptable exception to WP:NFF in that the film is completed , will premiere very soon , and its production is notable . It serves the project and its readers to allow this to remain and grow over time and through regular editing. It does not serve a reader's understanding of the topic to redirect to a article where this film is not even mentioned, nor does it serve the project to delete the base article through a possible fit of pique. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:32, 3 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) 16:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. Marvin Herndon[edit]

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

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

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

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

Seems to not be noticed enough by outside sources for his ideas which are generally not accepted in the mainstream. I do not think he is notable as an academic (WP:PROF) nor is he particular notable as a maverick (being profiled in Current Biography and mentioned in a single off-beat article in The Washington Post does not make for enough independent sources for a good article). I think between the lack of notability and the problems associated with unwarranted promotion of WP:FRINGE, we have a strong case for deletion. jps (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources. To highlight, he initially received a lot of attention after his theory was originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences one of the most influential scientific journals. He and the theory were featured as the cover story in the August 2002 issue of Discover (magazine), plus the many other sources: The Dallas Morning News, USA Today, Toronto Star, U.S. News & World Report, Discover (a 2nd article). He was also in the journal Science, based on a ref in one of the other sources, but having trouble finding a cite. Regardless if his theory is accepted science, passes WP:GNG, topic has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think his idea itself may be worthy of brief dismissive mention at geodynamo or a similar article about theories of the terrestrial magnetic field, but we're not talking about the idea (which is supported by a few other researchers as well). We're talking about the person and the relevant Wikipedia notability has to be based on the biographical information. WP:PROF is pretty clear that you can't just be published in PNAS to be notable. There has to be more. I suppose you are arguing that he is notable for reasons other than WP:PROF, but I would argue that these reasons are covered by WP:FRINGE and, as one your sources states: "His theory is not so much refuted as ignored." Basically, there isn't enough independent coverage of this person's ideas to make him, as a person, notable. jps (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a cover story in Discover plus the other sources are sufficient sourcing for WP:GNG. I disagree the theory counts under fringe, he's published in PNAS(!) and other reputable science journals ie. legitimate scientific method. That's how science works, scientists put forward seemingly crazy ideas in peer-reviewed journals and sometimes they are agreed with by some others, sometimes they are ignored by some others, but we don't discriminate, rather we determine if they are covered in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:FRINGE doesn't just apply an idea that hasn't been peer-reviewed. It also applies to ideas that have been marginalized. It's a matter of helping decide when sources can be haphazard (fringe subjects tend to be over-covered in the media because of the "everybody loves an underdog" angle and the understandable desire of many whose ideas are not taken as seriously by the community to make their case in other venues). I can point to a number of PNAS papers that are about fringe theories, and this does not mean to say that the theories are "bad", just that they are not well-covered. jps (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The same source you quoted where he was "being ignored" also says right after that has "prominent champions".[15] If it is fringe is questionable, and meanwhile we have plenty of sources to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PROF is incredibly vague, but this might meet WP:PROF #7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity") as well as WP:GNG. He passes the WP:PROF "Average Professor Test": how many average professors get a cover story on Discover Magazine, or have their work reported in mainstream news publications? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this recent effort to delete the page “J. Marvin Herndon” resulted because someone, not me, added references to some of my recent publications. The present deletion-effort is a microcosm of the activities that are leading to Wikipedia’s loss of credibility, including but not limited to a failure to understand what science is all about. Solid science, published in peer-reviewed world-class journals, has been called “FRINGE”, a pejorative assertion that might include topics such as alien abductions. I have been accused of self-promotion, although I have made no edits to Wikipedia pages in about five years. I have been accused of not being “notable “, although the subject of notability had previously been addressed in the Wikipedia community. Lengthy articles about my work have been published in Hörzu, Wissen, Sunday Times of London, Die Welt, Deccan Herald, Science & Vie, New Scientist, Sciences et Avenir, Japanese Playboy, San Francisco Chronicle, Newton (Italy), and others. I am profiled in Who’s Who in America and in the Internet Movie Data Base. I have been criticized because my scientific publications are not “mainstream”. Realize this: If the world were as presently perceived by the “mainstream”, there would be no need for science. Science is about finding out what is wrong with present perceptions and making improvements, replacing less-precise understanding with more-precise understanding. A new concept, a new understanding, typically begins with a single individual and is sometimes met with opposition and acrimony. For example, Alford Wegener’s 1912 evidence of continental drift was ignored and besmirched by the scientific community for 50 years until it was recast as plate tectonics. Are we so arrogant these days as to assume that plate tectonics is without flaws? Wikipedia has a poor track record of editing work related to my discoveries. For example, you may see that the page “georeactor” was deleted and the word georeactor on the page presently being considered for deletion is now linked inappropriately to the Oklo natural reactor. Years ago, maybe about 2006, someone posted that ‘georeactor” page, edits were made to it, sometimes pejorative edits. Then one day, I discovered that the “georeactor” page had been deleted. So, what is the misrepresentation here? In 1993, I demonstrated the feasibility of a nuclear fission reactor at the center of Earth called the georeactor. In subsequent work, including sophisticated calculations made at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, I improved upon the work. The work was thoroughly vetted in the international scientific community; it stimulated publication of copycat georeactors; it explained the origin of deep-Earth helium; recent geoneutrino measurements place upper limits on its output as either 15% or 26% of energy output revealed by geoneutrino measurements. The output may even be higher, because the published results did not include radioactive decay energy from the fuel component that was not engaged in fission. One of the recent references that someone added to the page presently under consideration for deletion is a review article entitled “Terracentric Nuclear Fission Reactor: Background, Basis, Feasibility, Structure, Evidence, and Geophysical Implications”. Read the paper and then ask why the “georeactor” page was deleted. Wikipedia has serious problems related to science edits and in the present instance, especially, to this attempt at deletion. Those who have doubts, should read my papers, many of which can be downloaded from the links someone recently added. One should question the motivation of the individual seeking deletion. In one previous instance, I discovered, a person calling for deletion was a graduate student of a professor who deliberately misrepresents my work in print. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia system of anonymous screen names tends to encourage the darker side of human nature. My screen name says who I am and I stand for the integrity of what I publish. Wikipedia should stand for integrity as well.JMHerndon (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)J. Marvin Herndon[reply]

Science by its nature is revolutionary seeking to overturn paradigms. The historical record is littered with theories that were ridiculed in their time. Plate tectonics, global warming, rocket science, antibiotics, etc.. we at Wikipedia need to be very careful about what we label as "fringe". If something is published in peer reviewed journals like PNAS, and has "prominent supporters", and coverage in reliable sources, benefit of doubt should be given, even if it is not part of the current accepted paradigm. Mr. Herndon, if you know of any other sources not currently listed (sources about not by) they would go a long way to defend this deletion. You're in a unique position. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am distressed that an anonymous vigilante has the power to delete 35 years of scientific endeavor, simply because he cannot appreciate it. That is wrong. If this were 1930, he'd be complaining about Tesla's page - another underappreciated outlier. In science, it is critical that well thought, provable theses be available to all. It's the main way we derive new directions and come to solid understandings. Wikipedia needs to be inclusive, not exclusive, and as Dr. Herndon's page strictly fits all the criteria, there is no basis for this waste of energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWineberg (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — DavidWineberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you. If you know of any other sources not currently listed (sources about not by) they would go a long way to defend this deletion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors JMHerndon and DavidWineberg need to read up a bit on what "notability" means here on WP. As far as I can see, Herndon does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. According to the Web of Science, his works have been cited a grand total of 488 times (h-index of 13), which is not indicative of a lasting impact on the field (and my [[WP:CRYSTAL|crystal ball refuses to tell me whether this will change in future). I disagree with Colapeninsula that an article in Discover constitutes a pass of WP:PROF. However, it does constitute good evidence of notability under WP:GNG and the other sources unearthed by Green Cardamon seal the deal: a clear pas of WP:GNG. As an aside, although his theories don't seem to be generally accepted (and PNAS has published its fair share of real fringe stuff), they don't seem to fall in what I would call "fringe" either. Fringe is when someone sticks to some unlikely idea with only some crackpot theory behind it or in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary keeps sticking to an invalidated hypothesis (like the AIDS denialism of Peter Duesberg - published also in PNAS...). None of that seems to be the case here. Anyway, even if it did, it's immaterial to this discussion. The article needs some cleanup to be reworked into an encyclopedic biography (and please note that Who's Who in America is not a reliable source and should not be used to source this article - or even be mentioned in it). --Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the J. Marvin Hendon Wikipedia article should NOT be deleted. I have written about Herndon in Chapter 11 of Cosmic Apprentice http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/cosmic-apprentice, a 2013 book on philosophy and the history of science that was the lead book on the spring list at the University of Minnesota Press. Science is ultimately not about consensus but about finding the truth, and alternative empirical hypotheses need to be cherished not buried alive. Science needs to keep alive unpopular ideas some of which will prove right in the long run; see Clarke's Laws and recall that G. Marconi, a key figure in the development of the radio, was recommended for the mental institution by the papal cleric to whom he applied for a grant to explore the possibility of wireless communications.

Here is a scan of an approving letter to Herndon from Inge Lehmann, whom Wikipedia informs us "received many honors for her outstanding scientific achievements, among them the Harry Oscar Wood Award (1960), the Emil Wiechert Medal (1964), the Gold Medal of the Danish Royal Society of Science and Letters (1965), the Tagea Brandt Rejselegat (1938 and 1967), the election as a Fellow of the Royal Society (1969),[3] the William Bowie Medal (1971, as the first woman), and the Medal of the Seismological Society of America (1977)": http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Inge%20Lehmann%20letter%20x600.jpg

Please let's not let anonymous Wikipedia posters prematurely decide on the validity of Herndon's ideas, which as far as I can tell tend to be supported by a variety of coherent evidence, including the recent discovery of Jupiter-sized extrasolar planets in surprisingly close orbit about their suns. Bibliorrhea (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Dorion Sagan[reply]

Comment Thank you for your !vote, however, none of your arguments are policy-based, I fear, and the scanned letter that you provide really is immaterial to the discussion here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book resource mentioned, Cosmic Apprentice, is a reliable source and I added it to the article in support of WP:GNG, so it was a helpful post - Just saying in case anyone else wants to post more information like it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two points I wish to raise here. One pertains to citations and one pertains to rewriting the J. Marvin Herndon page. In 1951 the US National Science Foundation (NSF) quite literally wrote the rules for the government support of science, rules that have been adopted for publications and for the support of science in other countries. Briefly, NSF decided that scientists would review each other’s proposals for funding, and the reviews would be anonymous. Over time this has led to individuals fearing that if they cite work which contradicts the work of one or more of the anonymous reviewers of their proposal, it is likely that the proposal will receive at best lukewarm reviews. So, the safe thing is simply not to cite the work of anyone who might challenge the status quo. That adversely impacts people like me who do challenge extant work. Counting citations can be misleading. The Wikipedia page J. Marvin Herndon should be rewritten. The page is not representative of my work. Not wanting to incur the wrath of Wikipedia editors, I have not made any changes. I am providing here a link to the important scientific contributions I have made, with references, and with links in many instances to webpages that provide easy to understand explanations: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/advances.html. I hope that any editorial revision will represent the totality of my important contributions. Thank you. JMHerndon (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)J. Marvin Herndon— JMHerndon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Counting citations can indeed be misleading, but nobody says that low citation counts prove a lack of notability. It's the other way around: high citation counts are prima facie evidence that someone has had demonstrable influence on their field. In your case, the citation counts are too low to indicate notability (in the WP sense, which has nothing to do with "good", "bad", "meritorious", etc but just means something like "can be shown to have been noted". --Randykitty (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. GS h-index of 12. Not so good for geoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He is more familiar for the contrary nature of his theories than for his citations index, and this controversy is covered well enough with citations. But also note that other scientists will discuss Herndon's theories with Herndon; he is more completely dismissed in the popular press than the scientific; look at some of the dialogue and scientific responses. Do we delete Greg Graffin's article for a low citation index and failing prof? Professor Herndon, Wikipedia biographies, all articles, are often based entirely upon internet sources that have been picked over for the most basic and easy to understand information--or so it seems to me. Hoping for a balanced article will get you disappointed. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep' on the basis of the GNG, which permits us to cover academics who do not meet the WP:PROF requirement. That guideline is very explicit that the GNG and PROF are alternatives -- an article is not required to meet both. There is sufficient general coverage, and I would be inclined to accept a full article in Current Biography as enough to justify notability for anyone--it's the equivalent of a biographical encyclopedia, and we include what other major encyclopedias include. The entire notability guideline is the way we deal with those subjects that other encyclopedias do not include. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:57, 9 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) 22:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Falioui[edit]

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

Not notable. No GNews/Book hits. GHits consist of WP:SPS, social media, and promotional postings of his videos. Refs are either self-published or otherwise not reliable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG. Previously CSD'd as G11. GregJackP Boomer! 14:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very thin on the ground, no coresponding deWiki article, which for Germany related topics is usually a very good indication for lack of notablility. Agathoclea (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for his work as an national actor and all refs were definitely NOT self-published. Does not fail at WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG. Terrencecarter —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC) — Terrencecarter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Don't know how many music blogs and video portals exist on the web, but it looks like his promotion team has found them all. But one mixtape and one supporting role in a scripted reality show with other amateur actors isn't enough, also appearing in the music video of a notable musician doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:GNG. --Ben Ben (talk) 13:06, 8 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) 18:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ott Christoph Hilgenberg[edit]

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

I don't think that this particular maverick scientist is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. In particular, I think he is being unduly promoted from what would be absolute obscurity by fringe proponents of Expanding Earth ideas. Indeed, I can find no mention of him independent of these pseudoscience promotions and those are certainly not the reliable sources Wikipedia requires to write a biography. I contend that there are no reliable sources about this person that are independent of the pseudoscience rabbit hole. jps (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL 7968 15:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've translated this article in 2007 from the original German article de:Ott Christoph Hilgenberg. At that time, I thought that this paper might be a reputable source on this topic. However, the book in which this paper was published was only written by proponants of the theory. As those "expanding earth" ideas are far beyond mainstream, I started to ignore this article and the related topic a long time ago. So deletion might be the correct solution, unless someone can find independent and reputable secondary sources. --D.H (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC. For context, the H-index is about 6 when using the rather generous Google scholar. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the promulgators of pseudoscience, thus fails WP:GNG, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The scientific worth of one's theories doesn't necessarily decide notability, but the fact that the subject is only referred to in non-reliable publications/books makes having an article inappropriate. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:FRINGE is more relevant than WP:ACADEMIC here. In order to provide neutral coverage of the subject, we need reliably published sources that treat his work from a mainstream point of view, rather than only using fringe sources. That's not the case here and no other sources appear to be available. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I would not delete an article on a German scientist that is unchallenged at the German WP. They know their field better than we can expect to, and their notability standards are higher than ours. I would be reluctant to extend this to any other WP in an absolute way, tho its always a reason for caution. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:00, 9 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) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Janaway[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. His football experience referenced is "youth", which as best as I can understand it is the farm system, and the Nottinghamshire Senior League, a level-11 football team which would not seem to qualify him under WP:NFOOTY. References given on him as a businessman are a user-editable database entry at TechCrunch (not a WP:RS) and a one-sentence mention in a local weekly's article on his company getting an environmental award. Zero Gnews hits. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly non-notable footballer, clear WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG failure. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG in general, WP:NFOOTBALL as a footballer and WP:BIO as a businessman. Non-notable all around. Giant Snowman 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Playing at far too low a level to merit an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 5 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/redirect all bd2412 T 22:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Atlaspheres[edit]

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

An individual stunt/event featured on a game show does not meet WP:GNG. Only source is link to a fan site for the game show ("Gladiators Zone, designed by Paul Noddings from NoddyDog, was launched in 1999 as a tribute to the UK Gladiators and to coincide with the final series of the hit TV show."), and notability is not inherited from Gladiators (franchise). Event is accurately described in List of American Gladiators events and List of Gladiators UK events at appropriate levels. AldezD (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail to meet the same guidelines of WP:GNG and use the same link as a reference:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not also listing Soccer Shootout (Gladiators), Spidercage, and Super Powerball? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AldezD (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all including the three I listed. It's clear that none of these are notable on their own. The lists are adequate as they are (in terms of covering the content, although copyediting is still needed). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable, per nom and Sven. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple:
- Delete Rocketball and move Rocketball (video game) into its place then add a hatnote to the video game article.
- Redirect Pole-axe → Pollaxe (tag as {{R from misspelling}} and add a hatnote)
- Redirect Hang Tough → Puppy (Fluke album) (tag as {{R from song}} and add a hatnote)
- Redirect everything else to the appropriate list and tag as {{R to list entry}}. It doesn't appear from a cursory search that "Super Powerball" is a game in any of the lotteries we have articles on but this surprises me so its probably worth doing a fuller search than I have time for now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf. buff bills 7701 20:54, 14 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 Over the Hedge. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stella (Over the Hedge)[edit]

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

Non notable side character in an animation. Seems to be a fan page. Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG for a stand alone article. EricSerge (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, by preference, merge with Hammy (Over the Hedge) and RJ (Over the Hedge) and maybe others (i haven't looked into how many have been created) into Characters from Over the Hedge. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Over the Hedge. Deletion would be OK, too. I agree with LindsayH: these Over the Hedge characters could easily be listed on such a page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Stella in the comic strip? She's only mentioned in the context of the film, so a redirect to Over the Hedge (film) might be more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hammy (Over the Hedge) and RJ (Over the Hedge) have all been made into redirects, which is probably the most appropriate action for this article as well. EricSerge (talk) 23:26, 9 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) 22:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MelloFest[edit]

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

Not a notable event. Article is completely unreferenced, zero news and book hits, a search for web hits brought up nothing but self published blogs and otherwise unreliable sources. Now, don't get me wrong - I'd quite like to go to this, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason to keep an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as non-notable. Yeah, could be fun, but it doesn't seem notable at all. If it becomes notable, then I see no reason why it can't be recreated, but it seems too early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This reads as if it is a series of NN concerts. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 5 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 2013 UCI ProTeams and riders. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of riders in the 2013 UCI World Tour[edit]

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

Redundant with List of 2013 UCI ProTeams (and less complete), so I propose a redirection to List of 2013 UCI ProTeams Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge duplicate articles. For nominator: you must rename second article, but not create the new one instead. And this is a list of riders, not teams only. NickSt (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article name After I created the List of 2013 UCI ProTeams article I found the other article. In the World Tour sometimes partitipate riders from a non UCI ProTeam, so I think the best name is List of 2013 UCI ProTeams and riders.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sander.v.Ginkel (talk • contribs)
Ok, I think, this is a correct name. Merge and rename. NickSt (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note created the article List of 2013 UCI ProTeams and riders, including the info of List of riders in the 2013 UCI World Tour . The article List of riders in the 2013 UCI World Tour could now be redirected to this page. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect created after merge was completed. Discussion can be closed now. NickSt (talk) 01:39, 12 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) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Walz[edit]

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

A short Maxim interview is about all I can find for this model and "actress", hardly enough for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem notable. It looks like this is too soon in her career to start up a Wikipedia bio. Unless someone can dig up better sources than are available on Google, I think this is more suited to a fansite or Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this person meets WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:BIO. Gong show 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Period. PrairieKid (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Gongshow, nothing to indicate shes passes any notability guidelines. Finnegas (talk) 21:00, 8 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. Will userfy upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Hawken[edit]

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

Fails notability. Passing mentions in the press and IMDB sources do no more than verify that the gentleman exists. Previously deleted via expired PROD and CSD. The current article appears very similar to the deleted articles. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are more than passing mentions, please study the articles in question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.99.187 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note participants in this discussion should look, please, at the edit history of Spencer Hawken, specifically at the multiple removal attempts of the AfD notice. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users should not the consistent attempts by Timtrentl even after other editing users have agreed the significance of the article. In fact three other editing parties worked on this title after Timtrentl moved for speedy deletion. So Timtrentl moved for speedy deletion, other editors disagreed with the move, edited the article to make it wiki friendly, then Timtrentl decided to again move the article for deletion. It is clear there is an agenda based on dislike of the subject matter by Timtrentl

A posting for this named person was in place from 2005 and deleted in June. The original text has now been replaced with one minor edit.

Timtrentl claims there to be only passing references, these are not simply passing references, they include mass press articles, and photographs proving the existence of said individual and significance for having a Wikipedia page. The named individual is engaged in activity that will ave significant historical value, increasing the first genuine zero budget feature film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.99.187 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is being held to determine by consensus whether the article is valid here, now, today. If Hawken passes WP:GNG then he passes and the article should remain. If he does not then it should not. That Hawken exists is not the issue. It is whether he is notable that is the issue. Rhetoric is useless in this discussion. By contrast facts, when placed in the article and cited in reliable sources, are highly likely to swing the argument in favour of it being kept. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point, is that the consensus already disagreed with your view, you then submitted it again for deletion. When someone disagrees with your view its war, what about your decision to disagree with others and put the article for deletion again? You seem to be the only person engaged in this battle, predecessors on both occasions disagreed with your view, but you single handedly continue with your crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.99.187 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have your chance to ensure that the article has sufficient notability asserted to avoid deletion. Go to it with a will. Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we already had that, you chose to delete it again! 151.231.99.187 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please try very hard to understand that the article, as it stands now, does not pass WP:GNG (0.9 probability), but that you can make it pass if you do some work on it to ensure that it does. I have proposed it here for a discussion about deletion. Others will judge whether it gets deleted or not. Work is what saves articles, not continual posting of the same thing in discussions. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation. Has potential, but the article is not there yet. Once notability has been conclusively established, it can be recreated. There are too many trivial mentions and unreliable sources (such as the IMDb, which I removed). Rather than describing a notable person, it makes the article seem like it's desperately seeking to establish notability using whatever is available from Google. In a situation where notability is hotly contested and only debatable, it seems best to userfy or incubate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links you removed was entirely valid, as there is photographic evidence that ties in with other articles on this page, so have resubmitted it.151.231.99.187 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not viewed as a reliable source, thus the item you consider to be evidence is considered by Wikipedia to be simply 'of interest'. Evidence may only be found in reliable sources. There is no inherent problem with linking to IMDB but the link is useless to verify facts. Fiddle Faddle 09:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This chap has appeared as an extra in two or three films, and claims to ahve directed a film on which we have no article. I cannot see that he has acheived anything noteworthy. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate The film Death Walks wb released in 2014. Presumably it will receive reviews. When it does, that will qualify this article as notable on WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple reviews. Until then WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some coverage in local papers is insufficient to establish notability. Speculating that he might become notable in the future with the release of a film is crystal ball gazing, and we don't do that. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 9 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) 03:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Worship Day[edit]

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

Completing incomplete nomination for Vvarkey. I'll ask him to explain his nomination. Stalwart111 09:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nominator has not given any rationale, and as a regular editor of WikiProject India and WikiProject India AFDs, I don't think there should be any valid reason to delete this article. The article passes GNG (ref 1, ref 2, ref 3). The article may have multiple issues, but that is not a reason to delete. I can't see any other issue. But, I'll follow the AFD to see nominator's rationale. --Tito☸Dutta 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda per policy. This article violates violates Wikipedia policy WP:NOTPROMOTION This so called Parents' Worship Day is not celebrated anywhere in India. It is a political propaganda event and Indians pay no attention to these events. The only thing that is celebrated in India on February 14 by a significant proportion of Indians is Valentine's Day. Some politicians are just turning themselves into a national laughing stock by coming up with these ideas. Also did I mention that (Redacted) (Asaram Bapu), (Redacted), originally came up with this idea of Parents' Worship Day. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Preetikapoor0:, it is not a promotional article. This is a notable event. Whether an editor or someone likes it or not does not matter. You have also told, the event got Indian politicians' support. @IRWolfie-:, I am unsure if the descriptor/adjective used for Asaram Bapu violates WP:BLPCRIME. The discussion is not on Asaram Bapu. --Tito☸Dutta 06:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that its a BLP violation and an unnecessary thing for someone to say since it holds no weight as an argument for deletion, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Redacted. The sentence still makes sense, I think it is better now. --Tito☸Dutta 08:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~: Most of the article is just trying to establish how "important" this date is. As an Indian, I've certainly never heard of anyone celebrating this day. At best, this be merged back into the Asaram Ashram page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Vvarkey:, as a nominator, the first and the most important thing you should do is— write a persuasive initial rationale (not a comment). It does not matter what you have heard and what not. Do you want to have this article deleted for notability reason (i.e. you think the event is not notable enough) or for some other reason? Clarify. --Tito☸Dutta 10:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - I left you a message on your talk page suggesting you add a rationale to your incomplete nomination. I've struck your vote above - as the nominator, it is assumed you support deletion (though at this stage we are still left to wonder why). If you support speedy deletion then you should have nominated the article for speedy deletion (though that would likely have been declined). If you don't add a deletion rationale to your nomination I'll procedurally close this per WP:SK1. Stalwart111 10:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart:, WP:SK1 may not be applicable here which states no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.., someone else has suggested speedy deletion. But, IMO, that is also a WP:IDONTLIKEIT type comment. They are saying: they have not heard of it or in India, no one celebrates the event. But, the references I added in my first post clearly show that the event was celebrated at least in few states. So, I am still trying to understand the reason to nominate this article for deletion. In addition, in case if you are not aware, you may have a look at this dispute where eventually Jimbo Wales got involved and his edits were reverted etc etc. The biographical article is a controversial article at this moment. I won't be surprised if I see few more "speedy delete" votes, but the closer needs to be careful. --Tito☸Dutta 11:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that, but this nomination is getting ridiculous and the other editor can take it up with me if he/she wants. I should have just removed the templates from the article and the log as an incomplete nomination rather than completing what was obviously an ill-thought-out (and likely pointy) nomination in the first place. Could even be closed as "wrong venue" if the right venue is ANI. Either way, this shouldn't sit on the log with no deletion rationale whatsoever. Stalwart111 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The long list of glowing, often unreferenced quotes is not defensible. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize the world, not to copy it, and giving a lot of quotes for no purpose but to demonstrate that some famous people gave support is not standard. The standard thing is to list the names (with Wikilinks) and have a list of sources to document that they actually gave support, relying on quotes only where there is something particularly interesting or crucial about how they put something. Once the article is suitably deflated, there should only be a couple of paragraphs that could be merged into Asaram Bapu. The Asaram Bapu Ashram article also would probably be best merged into the parent article for now. People have been hearing about a big BLP controversy at the main article because all the meat of it is delegated out to these snippets, while "controversies" are retained at the parent, leading to an appearance of bias. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt:, sourcing should not be an issue here. There are few sourcing errors which can be solved too. A part of the article should be rewritten too. But, the event has its own importance. So, I don't think this should be merged. BTW, about Asaram Bapu article, few days ago there I added a summarized paragraph from this article. --Tito☸Dutta 19:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete or Merge~~ If it is orange in color, has claws, and is striped it has to be a tiger. I had only pointed the irrefutable facts in my comments earlier including the reason for his arrest. There is no need to pretend that problems don't exist or to tiptoe around. I did not say that he was convicted. I did not edit the main article. Unnecessary censorship on discussion page is ultimately a detriment to Wikipedia. This guru has been one for the abolition of Valentine’s Day, which he sees as just the excuse all these young people need to have sex. Therefore he came up with this idea for Parents' Worship Day. Now he is in custody for sexually assaulting a minor at his ashram. Therefore the context is extremely important here. For example some motives for antigay violence suggested in the literature include proving heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires (Reference: Adams HE, Wright LW, Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?. J Abnorm Psychol. 1996;105(3):440-5.). Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. You cannot create an article about your high school crush or alleged criminals' social messages. His social messages belong to his personal page only. Additionally, India is a country of more than a billion people. A political event attended by few dozen people (even that is a stretch in this case) in remote corners of India is a non-event. The whole purpose of this page (Parents' Worship Day) appears to be self promotion. I'd say more, but the language police would be redacting my comments again. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asaram Bapu Ashram article should also be either deleted, or merged into Asaram Bapu article.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Preetikapoor0: Whoosh! Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT comment. Please support your arguments with sources and not by your personal opinion and original research. Your primary concern seems to be notability. But, above it has been shown the event has got media coverage. Your personal opinion etc don't matter. --Tito☸Dutta 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashram article isn't actually a bad start on its own, and I can kind of see keeping it, especially if the organization turns out to have some independence (I know nothing about it - would it remain intact after the founder dies, etc.?) But there are times when a topic has just a few shards of coverage separated by big gaps where it may be better to consolidate all the related articles into one - but not for the purpose of deleting stuff you don't like, but to make it clearer where to expand it! Wnt (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: @Wnt: Please read the following reference. I think we should also delete or merge the ashram article with Asaram Bapu article as per media reports it is no more than a harem. Reference http://www.tehelka.com/the-saint-and-his-taint/?singlepage=1 Preetikapoor0 (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good reference to keep the article, but, we can add a "controversy/criticism" section. --Tito☸Dutta 06:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: I am a little bit confused by your actions. If you think that the reference was good and we should add a "controversy/criticism" section, why did you revert my edit on Asaram Bapu Ashram. It gives the impression that you are sanitizing the articles of Asaram and deleting all the negative references. But while Asaram's actions and his Ashram's alleged illegal activities have created a firestorm of controversy, you can't read about it on Wikipedia. Any negative references are being promptly deleted. As aptly said by Snigdha Poonam in New york times, "The most zealous of his followers are, however, neither in his satsangs nor the street demonstrations, but online" "Mr. Asaram could turn out to be innocent, and this whole controversy may well be a conspiracy of the Congress or of Coca-Cola, but one thing is clear: rape is not yet a real issue in India." Preetikapoor0 (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at your talk page. this discussion is not on Asaram Bapu Ashram. --Tito☸Dutta 17:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Burden of proof is on the delete side to show that the article as written is not a notable concept. There seem to be plenty of endorsements. Shii (tock) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Burden of proof is on the delete side to show that the article as written is not a notable concept." In your comments you confessed that this day is a concept. And that is why this article should be merged with the biography of the person (Asaram Bapu) who came up with this concept. As opposed to false statements by @Titodutta:, this is Not an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am not the one here sanitizing the articles of Asaram Bapu and deleting all the negative references. The problem here is WP:NOTPROMOTION. As aptly said by @Vvarkey: Most of the article is just trying to establish how "important" this date is. This article is full of Materially False And Misleading Statements. For Example "...It is celebrated in many parts of the world, majorly in Indian sub-continent..." It is stretching the truth beyond the breaking point and gives a blatantly false impression to wikipedia readers. Another statement, "...Asaram Bapu, a famous Hindu spiritual leader from India" but conveniently neglects to mention the other half of the story that he is in custody for sexually assaulting a minor at his ashram and per media reports his ashrams are a den of illegal activities including money launndering, tax evasion, land grabbing and sexual misconduct. Reference http://www.tehelka.com/the-saint-and-his-taint/?singlepage=1. It falsely states that "... Asaram Bapu also expressed that this initiative is not against the celebration of Valentine's Day..." On the other hand new york times reported that his most persistent campaigns against the growing sexualization of Indian society has been one for the abolition of Valentine’s Day, which the guru sees as just the excuse all these young people need to have sex. “Chhora Chhori ko phool de, bole main tumse pyaaar karta hoom; chhori chhore ko phool de, bole main tumse pyaar karti hoon. Satyanaash ho jaata hai. Pyaar ke bahane gandi gandi harkatein kar ke khali ho jaate hain.” (“Boy offers flower to girl, says he loves her; girl offers flower to boy, says she loves him. It leads to destruction. They engage in dirty acts in the name of love, wasting themselves in the process.”) (Reference http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/the-advantages-of-being-asaram-bapu/). Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting oneself, a product or service, or an idea. Therefore it cannot be used to promote this concept of Asaram Bapu. In this article Asaram Bapu's zealous followers are trying to present Asaram Bapu's fringe concept as something that is followed by majority of Indians and a significant part of population of several other countries. This act is explicitly banned under Wikipedia:Core content policies, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. Therefore this article deserves a speedy deletion or at best a merge with the biography of the person Asaram Bapu who came up with this concept. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you seem to really have a problem with this related figure. Shii (tock) 07:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic meets WP:GNG. 14:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Zimmerman[edit]

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

No reviews in reliable sources of self published book. Unnotable author. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article biography does not strongly indicate notability. If there was any, it would probably be through reception for his book, which appears to have been self-published in 2007 (Amazon ASIN B005D3J2IA) but I am finding nothing to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just can't find enough to show that he's ultimately notable enough to merit an entry. That he was on the production staff of a notable show would be just enough to keep him from qualifying for a speedy delete, but that isn't enough to keep. The only thing I could find was this local paper that wrote about him, but since it's a local source it's greatly depreciated as far as notability goes and even if it wasn't, that's not enough to keep on. It's very, very rare that one source will be enough to keep an article on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shows up on lots of self-published and non-reliable blogs and other sites, but establishing notability seems difficult (if not impossible). Maybe there's some some hardcopy interviews or something, but I'm not seeing any usable sources on Google. It can always be recreated later if reliable sources can be shown to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 3 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) 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Fate (album)[edit]

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

Album lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. History has a bunch on bad external links trying to publicise the album, not independent coverage. A search found no good sources to show notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no independent coverage found; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 07:58, 5 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) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Pengkalan Utama[edit]

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

Non-Notable across world. Bobherry talk 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a state-level route, and state-level routes are considered to be notable for being state-level routes, per Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. Sources will need to be found to pass WP:V, but these need not be online sources. Just because it's a state-level route in Malaysia does not make it "non-notable across world", see WP:BIAS/WP:CSB. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - State level routes are notable, and saying that something is "non-notable around the world" is a case of systemic bias, something Wikipedia strives to avoid. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:25, 2 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) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Keohane[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Claim that being a Special Assistant to the President is basically a third level staff position. Article cites academic career as enought to establish notability; however, there is no evidence he was a tenured professor or he meets criteria in WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep environmental expert often quoted and interviewed. Plain Google searches: [16][17][18][19][20][21] He has a lot of hits in the Congressional Hearing Transcript Database meaning he participated in various capacities at Congressional Hearings. He was a guest on CNN Tonight with anchor Erica Hill (12/07/2009) pretty lengthy. There's 19 hits on NewsBank in newspapers around the country, of those about 5 already mentioned. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query Did you look at the G-scholar hits? Dloh cierekim 16:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I saw a number of thanks listings of his name, but admittedly I did not look at every listing. reddogsix (talk)

Delete. It's not GS hits that are important, it's cites, and these are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has had a lot of updates since it was nominated for deletion. The inclusion of about almost a dozen citations from independent and reliable sources demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Although the Congressional testimony, in itself, is not independent (Congressional testimony is a primary source), it does demonstrate the subject's importance as having "made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", per WP:PROF Criteria #7. - tucoxn\^talk 07:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sigh AfD as a route to improvement. Dloh cierekim 14:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and "good job" to the improvers. While I would prefer stronger WP:RS, the subject is notable. Dloh cierekim 14:36, 7 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 Icon for Hire. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icon for Hire (album)[edit]

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

clearly WP:TOOSOON. No RSes can or will be found for over a month. Move to user space and restore when the album meets notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I agree with nominator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Only Do not even userfy it right now because then you keep the cover art, which must get deleted, so the only solution to the matter is a simple redirect to the band page.HotHat (talk) 05:24, 4 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) 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Shiqiang[edit]

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. AdamSmithUS (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fixed this nomination after @AdamSmithUS: accidentally added it to the first AFD discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We do need to avoid systemic bias when we can, and in the last AfD, an IP put forward a plausible though not overwhelming case for notability, most likely through WP:POLITICIAN. The main problems are that while one or more of the posts he has held may meet this standard, I don't know how to verify this for Chinese posts - and that the only verification I have found for his holding any of these posts is a mention in a French-language news story of his membership of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. We badly need someone to do a search for reliable Chinese sources, and either add them to the article or bring them back here. PWilkinson (talk) 09:07, 8 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 Predacon. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sky-Byte[edit]

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

This character lacks any citations to prove notability. The ones there only cite unimportant details about the voice actor and toy line. TTN (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or Merge) to Predacon. No indication of notability. The only sourced content is the voice actor, and I can't find any sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 3 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) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Species in Defiance[edit]

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

Fansite-style page full of synthesis, speculation and original research, "sourced" to a myriad Tumblr, Facebook and YouTube sources of dubious reliability and uncertain legality, which at best are primary sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A brief summary of the alien types is reasonable on the current show's main page (there's no SIZE issues yet here), otherwise this is far too much information that weights heavily on primary sources (the show, the game, the social media sites) for a proper notable article. Though recommend that if editors that want to keep this information for a fan wiki to get it transwiki'd before it is moved. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the main contributor to the article, who will probably be up in arms about this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:49, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not contain enough secondary sources to substantiate its significance. Also, too much of the material is too un-encyclopedic, and too poorly-sourced to be kept. It would be a really great post for a community Wiki that is specific to the game if one exists or on a gamer site Wiki of some sort. CorporateM (Talk) 18:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It bears mentioning that, since the series and the game are a shared universe. With that in mind, could some of the information might be sourced to reliable references regarding the MMPORG? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Should be moved to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 4 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.

"Should be moved to Wikia." - Why not just smear feces on the content, a much kinder thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.167.84 (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mirage (Magic: The Gathering). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaervek[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability, and the entirety of the content is in-universe with no likely chance of real-world expansion. TTN (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:27, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. More fodder for Wikia. Redirect to Magic: the Gathering would also be acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Mirage (Magic: The Gathering), which would make more sense if the merge proposed there goes through. Either way, he's appeared in other storylines but is most closely associated with that one. Deletion wouldn't be a huge loss, however. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 9 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 Manningham, Bradford. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Abbey, Bradford[edit]

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

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but this does not appear to be genuine. If it is genuine it has no notability asserted nor verified Fiddle Faddle 21:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is certainly a genuine, historical district (it even seems to have had its own witch!!)- see this search for example. It is not now an officially designated district and all the content does seem to be unsourceable OR. Having said that, there does seem to be enough material that can be mined to justify at least a section in one of the articles on a larger area eg Manningham, Bradford. However, looking at that article such a merge would also be contentious! My view is that the sources need to be studied to see if a viable article can be produced and, if not, merge options should be explored before outright deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "White Abbey Road" certainly exists. Google Maps records "White Abbey" and "Black Abbey" next to this. Districts in cities are almost invariably somewhat amorphous. [http://www.visitbradford.com/things-to-do/Asian-shops.aspx refers to White Abbey Road as part of the "World mile". My view is that the article should be merged or redirected, unless the article can be adequately sourced. However, I do not know the area, so cannot do this myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 22 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:18, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Manningham, Bradford. This is likely otherwise to be a permastub and this action, though not ideal, seems to be a pragmatic solution. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:45, 2 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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Richman[edit]

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

subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline Merelynormal (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Merelynormal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merelynormal (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:54, 19 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:23, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:29, 2 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) 16:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Botello[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Lacking inline citations for over 3 years, and none of the links look reliable or are first party. Ir d'hore arachkallez (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 19 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:24, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Books shows a snippet from the New Yorker mentioning her role (albeit as cameo) in the Judy Garland play. But I am not finding any reliable sources that confirm biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her notability comes from two years of co-hosting The Screen Savers starting in 1998. I've expanded the article a bit and added three references. Although she is now mostly out of the public eye, notability is not temporary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is 2 years as co-host of a cable/satellite TV programme really enough to establish biographical notability? Personally I think that tends to the person-with-a-job end of matters, skirting WP:NOTINHERITED, rather than demonstrably meeting WP:ENT #1 or #2. I notice there is a potted biography on The_Screen_Savers#Previous_hosts_and_supporting_members; if sourced there, an alternative would be a redirect. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, answering your question is the purpose of this debate, isn't it, AllyD? I see enthusiastic language used by reliable sources about her work on that show, and praise of her Judy Garland work as well. So, I think she scrapes by notability, but understand that you don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my first article AFD in favor of keeping. My husband is Cullen328 and we discussed the article. References have been added, external links have been included. As a Bay Area native I remember watching the broadcasts on local TV. This person is notable and the article should not be deleted.ChesPal (talk) 00:49, 3 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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Belliveau[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. ambassadors are not inherently notable. I found no substantial coverage. lots of coverage of namesakes in the USA. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 19 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:37, 26 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:27, 2 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) 23:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gua (First Wave)[edit]

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

This topic does not establish notability, and it is unlikely viable sources exist for it. TTN (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 28 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Could also be merged into the parent article, First Wave (TV series). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 4 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 Win-loss record (pitching). --BDD (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decision (baseball)[edit]

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

the information on this page is already in the Win–loss record (pitching) page Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - content is duplicated in much more detail on the other page, and the disambiguation makes a redirect useless. Ansh6 6 6 03:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Win-loss record (pitching). The content is duplicated, but a redirect is a more appropriate option because many pages link to Decision (baseball), plus redirects are cheap. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:42, 28 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 12:38, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
Redirect per Muboshgu. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:37, 6 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) 07:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy Lopez, Marshall Attack, Rombaua Trap[edit]

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

This is a hoax. No reliable sources are given, and no rationale is given for the name of this chess trap. No results for "Rombaua Trap" in GBooks; all Google hits are social media sources. The name is not found in general reference books such as The Oxford Companion to Chess. I am also nominating the following redirects for deletion:

Cobblet (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google books does give two hits for "Rombaua Trap" but unfortunately does not include text: A History of Chess and Basic Chess Endings. A History of Chess is a classic and published in 1913. The Oxford Companion to Chess also has a hit for Rombaua + chess, which all goes to suggest that this is unlikely to be a hoax. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the other two books you mentioned (although it is exceedingly unlikely that Fine's Basic Chess Endings would contain information on an opening trap—this is a well-known book and I'm sure somebody could check to make sure), but the 2nd edition of the Oxford Companion definitely does not mention the Rombaua Trap. See p. 343 ("Romantic Attack" is followed by "Romi Opening") or p. 472 (the opening index, where no variations of the Marshall Attack are listed.) Cobblet (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is almost certainly not in Basic Chess Endings. I looked in the The Oxford Companion to Chess and it isn't there. Marshall Attack has an entry, but there is nothing about this, either under Marshall Attack, its own name, or in the big list of opening lines in the back. It also isn't in the index of the History of Chess. Also, History of chess predates the first use of the Marshall Attack in general, so it is almost certainly not in that book. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I appreciate both of you taking the time to look. I wish I still had my copy of a History of Chess to see if a Rombaua appears in there in relation to Ruy Lopez. In any event, I think you've amply demonstrated lack of notability. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New paperback printings of the History of Chess are available at a reasonable price. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Appears to be a 'what might happen if the defender plays automatically and fails to find the refutation' scenario. More a casual observation than serious, established opening theory. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable at least. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it. Unverifiable. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator on all points. Quale (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first glance, this looks like a reasonably made theoretical article on a sideline in a major chess opening. But looking deeper, it is quite telling that the sources don't support the contents. Neither of the two cited games, Tal-Geller] nor Polgar-Nunn feature the ...Bxh2+ sacrifice that the article is about, and so are basically irrelevant. The comments above have made a convincing case for deletion as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 8 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zappzter[edit]

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

Not notable. No references from reliable or verifiable sources that are independent of the subject. No GNews/Book hits. GHits consist of self-published, social media, and download sites. Probable sock / meatpuppet involvement, see here. Previously CSD'd A7/G11. Current CSD tag (A7/G11) removed by SPA. GregJackP Boomer! 01:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the request for removing this article, florida sun biz states that Zappzter is a limited liability company, and Zappzte IM is their trademark. What kind of references do you suggest there should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslienielsen (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Leslienielsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Notability in Wikipedia has to be established by reliable or verifiable sources that are independent of the subject. The mere existence of the company is not sufficient. Reliable sources are typically newspapers, books, journal articles, etc., that discuss the company in depth and in multiple sources. This article does not have those, nor could I find any in a Google search. You can click on any of the blue links for a description of Wikipedia policy in that area. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A government agency is much more reliable than a random internet source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike0913 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Mike0913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The fact that a company is registered with the government proves that the company exists. It doesn't establish anything about the notability of the company, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like an obvious attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion by two single-purpose accounts, one of which would seem to have an obvious conflict of interest while the other is an obvious username violation. Then there's the meat-puppetry. Beyond all of that (in terms of the stuff that actually counts), there wouldn't seem to be anything available to substantiate notability. Certainly no significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that I was able to find. Stalwart111 02:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage from secondary sources. The company merely exists. The creators are confused as to why we include articles about companies here. We document notability, not expand it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found of attained notability, either in terms of the company or its software. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Speaking as original CSD tagger. Ignatz mice•talk 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Insufficient (virtually nonexistent) coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of evidence of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 02:41, 3 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 speedy delete as a copyvio. No prejudice against re-creation with proper content. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Computational wave dynamics[edit]

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

Not notable: "computational wave dynamics" about 4 times mentioned in Google Scholar and about 9 times in Googe Books. Crowsnest (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's clearly current encyclopedic knowledge. scope_creep talk 01:42, 03 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This branch of science/math must surely be notable. The few Google hits may be due to different terminology being used to describe it (the article currently uses both "computational wave dynamics" and "water wave dynamics", and maybe there are others also). Peacock (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See e.g. Computational fluid dynamics#Two-phase flow. "Water wave dynamics" is a broader subject (like fluid dynamics and computational fluid dynamics), since it is not limited to computational methods. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lead of the article is (mainly) a copy and paste of [22]. Without it nothing substantial on the possible subject is left, so I nominated the article for speedy deletion. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:41, 3 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suhaee Abro[edit]

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

Not notable, self-created vanity page already speedy deleted under a different title HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now withdrawing AfD as this is an existing valid page which the editor replaced with his own biographical information. Page has been reverted.HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 13:47, 2 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.