Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 April 11 April >

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 merge to Ilanz. Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Ilanz[edit]

List of mayors of Ilanz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication why a list of mayors of a minor place (some 2,000 people) would be a notable subject. It is not as if the election of a new mayor here would get any coverage beyond routine reports and very local mentions. Fram (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's a list of mayors of an independent municipality which existed for centuries. While many of them will never have articles, some will. I think that based on WP:NLIST if the head masters of a school can be included, then mayors of a municipality ought to be as well.Tobyc75 (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have separate lists of the headmasters of most schools (we may have for some exceptional schools like Eton, but not in general); the section you link to discusses embedded lists. There are probably hundreds of thousands former communities in Europe, every place in many countries has existed for centuries and had its own mayor. Why would we want to have or allow lists for the mayors of all of these, even if one or two are themselves notable (not for being mayor, but for some other reason)? Should we have List of mayors of Saint-Georges-des-Groseillers? Fram (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you make a draft for one so we can review and comment? -- 签名 sig at 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If lists are separate or embedded mainly depends on additional content already at Wikipedia for the context. For consistency, I think it is preferable to create them in a similar form. -- 签名 sig at 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly a "list of office holders", not a general "list of people".
  • "lists of people" are generally limited to people actually having articles.
  • "lists of office holders" are pointless if we attempt to limit them to people having articles.
Whether people have articles on English language Wikipedia or not, mainly depends if they are English speaking or not. Furthermore, articles about living politicians seem more frequent in some countries than others (e.g. every mayor of Aliso Viejo has one). Personally, I don't like articles about living politicians that much, but I think it is interesting to be able to see who holds this or that office. Neither is actually a criteria if they could have an article. -- 签名 sig at 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the number of people living in its boundaries, Ilanz is generally considered to be a "city". It had been the only one within the territory of the Grey League (1395-1799) and Ilanz is listed as capital of the Grey League. -- 签名 sig at 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Grey League, which basically existed between 1395 and 1471, after which it became a part of the Three Leagues, with capital Chur. Fot the 1395-1471 period, no mayors are listed. Are they known? Fram (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think lists of mayors of cities or towns is a notable subject. The information of who served is verifiable, the list is limited (to a particular class), and the position plays a significant role in the formation of policy is a municipality. This information could be useful to researchers or to residents of the city that want to know more about their history. Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ilanz. Although the list is potentially long, at the moment it would easily fit. "Mayor of Ilanz" is probably not an independently notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge for now. Regarded as a town, it is not nearly of the size that would necessarily make all mayors notable (in the US, the usual size in most afd decisions is between 50,000 and 100,000.). I'm not entirely sure to what extent it should be regarded as an independent state, and for what period. It normally was subject or part of some larger jurisdiction. Of course, to the extent it was an independent political entity, every chief executive of it is intrinsically notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 12 April 2014 (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FestivaLink presents Cowan, Scott, Flynn at Wintergrass 2/23/07[edit]

FestivaLink presents Cowan, Scott, Flynn at Wintergrass 2/23/07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:ALBUM SarahStierch (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 10 April 2014 (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skinnyman (studio)[edit]

Skinnyman (studio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims of notability are thin, and the article is wholly unverified. There's some serious COI editing going on, of course--see the contributions by user:Royharter, and the related activities on the related article Roy Harter by user:Skinnyman2010. There's some awards listed, all from Promax Awards (not the hottest ticked in town), but what they're for is unclear, and they aren't verified. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've searched google books and factiva for possible sources to demonstrate notability, but couldn't find anything suitable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources from which to verify the awards section. WP:GNG is a long way off being met. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2014 (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RelayFoods.com[edit]

RelayFoods.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small regional chain, no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I live in that area and while I have heard of them I don't think they pass our guidelines for companies yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I see it has at least 10 sources, some from notable companies. Though also, it seems to include promotional content according to WP:SPAM in the 'mission' and the WP:LEAD.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 10 April 2014 (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Con Los Ojos Cerrados[edit]

Con Los Ojos Cerrados (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NSONGS and WP:TOOSOON. Erick (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2014 (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia Raiyen[edit]

Dalia Raiyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN. Struggling to find reliable secondary sources - most are press releases. She was signed to Sony, but I can't find much reference wise except for the one interview and proof that anything was released... SarahStierch (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 10 April 2014 (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. Essentially a non-verifiable theory published by a single source, which Wikipedia cannot implicitly promote on behalf of the author. This should be only re-created when and if it receives wider scientific coverage and scrutiny. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luon[edit]

Luon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination started by 149.217.1.5 (talk), with rationale on Talk:Luon: The article does not appear to have the required relevance (not even in the field of theoretical particle physics). The term Luon is apparently only used by the individual author of the cited paper. Also the article rather explains the notion of a quasiparticle than what is specific about this particular one. — HHHIPPO 22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — HHHIPPO 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about a newly discovered phenomenon in theoretical physics that has been reported in a top-ranked scientific journal. It includes the required reference and does not violate any copyright restrictions. Therefore it is in full agreement with wikipedia's rules and should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A primary source can't establish notability. "Newly discovered" implies WP:TOSOON. — HHHIPPO 22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HHHIPPO I just checked WP:TOSOON, I do not think it applies because if one would follow that logic, then wikipedia should also not have covered the Higgs boson until it was discovered. By this I do not want to claim that the luon will be equally relevant for physics in the future as the Higgs boss is - I just want to say that wikipedia covers a vast about of information that is not entirely established in the sense that it is still subject of scientific discussion. And that is good, everything else would be very worrying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Higgs was notable long before it was experimentally confirmed, but that doesn't mean everything that's not found yet is notable. Being subject of a scientific discussion (certified by reliable secondary sources) establishes notability of a topic, being subject of a single paper does not (yet). — HHHIPPO 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe I can ensure you this is not an Aprils joke. Please check the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)— 马口 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep To be honest, I am quite surprised by the suggestion to delete the article. After all, it describes a phenomenon that was considered significant enough to get published in a top-ranked international journal in the field. I would have thought that the criteria for that should not be not lower than those in an open source project like wikipedia. If the article indeed gets deleted, that would cast severe doubts on how "open" wikipedia really is. To be a bit more concrete, I would like to know
1) Which wikipedia rule is violated by the article?
2) About notability: I wonder whose judgement the decision whether something is "notable" or not is based. Is any of the people who suggest that the article should be deleted an expert in the field? If yes, than please explain me why he/she is sure that this phenomenon is not notable.
3) Which is the definition of notability anyway? I just checked that wikipedia covers information about the changes in hairstyle of Justin Bieber. I personally do not think this is notable at all. Nevertheless I would not dare to delete this information because it seems to me other people find it important, and I do not feel entitled to question that. I thought that is the whole point of an open source project - to share knowledge that different groups of people might consider relevant or interesting. To my understanding, the only reasons why something should be deleted from Wikipedia is if it is a) incorrect, b) insulting/racist/etc or c) clearly completely irrelevant. a) and b) certainly do not apply, and I am pretty sure that c) does not apply either because this is a scientific discovery that was considered important enough to be published in a top-ranked international journal. What implications this theoretical discovery has will become clear in years to come, but I think saying that it is "not notable" at this stage is a very strong statement. Who says so should provide clear reasons for this opinion.马口 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — 马口 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The main difference between scientific journal and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our inclusion criterion is not that a topic is correct or brilliant or important. We only report what the scientific community says about the topic. To do that from a neutral point of view and to establish that there actually is a scientific discussion on the topic, we have to wait until the topic is dicussed in secondary sources.
See also WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, e.g. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability — HHHIPPO 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, the concept of a luon, an alternative name for a kind of plasmon, only appears in the one cited paper. The paper is a reliable source, per WP:RS, but is a primary source. According to notability guidelines WP:GNG, a topic needs multiple, in-depth, secondary reliable sources that are independent of the creator. As a paper that was published just 2 weeks ago, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not been enough time has elapsed for independent reliable sources to develop, i.e., review papers, news stories from reputable publishers, etc. Without multiple RS, this article fails notability guidelines. An alternative to deletion would be to userfy the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Mark viking, thanks for the comments. The luon is indeed something very similar to a plasmon. And the paper is a primary source, so one could argue that the guideline requiring secondary sources applies. It would still surprise me if this is a reason for deletion because I have seen loads of articles without any "reliable sources" at all (neither primary nor secondary), and also articles that differ considerably from what is said in the source they quote (making it questionable whether the source qualifies as such). If the majority of people who are in charge of deleting articles here in spite of this fact think that it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable to delete the article, then one possibility would be to integrate its content into the plasmon article.马口 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)马口 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)— 马口 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - per AVOIDCOI, @马口 should disclose that they are the creator of the article. Also, they have voted twice, so I crossed out the first one. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RockMagnetist I'm sorry, I'm new at editing articles, but from the rules I understood this is a discussion rather than a vote, and it's more about the content of the comments rather than their number. I didn't to give a false impression by posting more than once. With my second post I simply responded to the comments of other users. Btw, I personally do not think anyone's identity should be relevant for judging the content of anything that is written if it's objective.马口 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)— 马口 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes, I don't doubt you were acting in good faith. I'm just tidying up loose ends. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - This article as it is can't exist. But there needs to be more to put in the article in order for it to not be marked as a stub, including:
  • This is a new discovery (but not new enough to be WP:TOSOON)
  • Actual formulas detailing how it can be achieved for verifications
  • More scholarly sources confirming its existence
For example, check the Landau Pole article for what this should look like to constitute a Wikipedia article of this nature. Mystipedian (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mystipedian Thanks for the suggestions. I'm happy to edit and improve the article, but I will wait a bit more for the outcome of the discussion here. If the majority of people who are in control of wikipedia (i.e. can remove articles here) insist on deleting the article, then it would be a waste of time to edit it now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 马口 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 10 April 2014
@马口 Always happy to help! Mystipedian (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@马口: There is no such thing as people who are in control of wikipedia, there are inclusion criteria defined by broad community consensus, which this topic not yet fulfills. The word insist is maybe not the best way to describe people who don't change their opinion without reason.
@Mystipedian: WP:TOSOON says the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, and it seems to be consensus here that no seconday sources on that topic exist as of now. — HHHIPPO 18:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhippo: Well, maybe my choice of words is a bit strong. However, there clearly are people who are in "control" on the following sense: As far as I understand the rules, this is a discussion (not a vote). So the decision about deleting/keeping an article in the end does not automatically follow from the number of "keep" or "merge" vs "delete", but is made by a human based on the arguments in the discussion and his/her interpretation of the consensus-rules. This person must have some kind of administrator rights to delete articles which (I think) I do not have. About the criteria... I can see where you are coming from regarding secondary sources. But if this were applied consistently, then I believe a large number of articles on wikipedia should be deleted because many of them do not even have any sources at all that I would consider reliable, and it seems to me that this is not done. I can also see why you don't like the word "insist". I didn't mean to offend anyone by than, but since most discussions do not have a unique result that follows necessarily from the arguments like in a mathematical proof, it is quite easy to have two people who "do not change their mind without a reason", but also do not have the same opinion. That's what I mean my "insist" - with no intention to offend anyone!马口 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@马口: Please read OTHERSTUFF. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RockMagnetist: I see... if one follows the argument of that pokemon example, then I guess the natural consequence would be a merge马口 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. If so, I think the best target would be Quasiparticle#More specialized examples. However, I am reluctant to actually vote for that because there is still only one source, and that recent and primary. The people editing Quasiparticle would be in their rights to challenge and remove it. In your position, I'd try adding a brief description of this particle to that section and see what happens. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@马口: You're right about the role of administrators, but they don't make the rules, they only implement them. Also, you shouldn't think that you're fighting here against an evil cabal of powerful old wikipedians who just don't like your article. This would be a common misconception of new editors who start out by writing about their own work which they are obviously passionate about and which they don't want to see "deleted" for any reason. There's nothing wrong with Luons, the concept is just too new for an encyclopedia article at this time. I usually find it much easier to work on topics I have no personal connection with, and leave the writing about whatever noteworthy I might have done to others.
Regarding other articles lacking sources: you're more than welcome to help out by either adding citations to them or nominating them for deletion. Keep in mind though that there's a difference between "no secondary sources have been added to the article yet" and "everybody agrees that no secondary sources exist". — HHHIPPO 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
马口 Exactly as he said. And we definitely don't mind that you wrote this entry, and don't misinterpret us as doing so. We love that you took it upon yourself to write about something you feel so passionately for. It simply needs more "Meat and potatoes" to make it a full entry, which means more citations, more detail and more info, to restate my OP. Mystipedian (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability: a single paper is far, far below the notability threshold. -- 119.225.153.211 (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. The creator should possibly take note that creating wikipedia articles about ones own work is generally considered bad form.TR 16:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I exported it tov:Luon, where it fits better for the editor's purpose than the goals of Wikipedia. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:32, 13 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Leslie Akassi[edit]

Monique Leslie Akassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biography of a non-notable academic. I have failed to find any independent sources discussing her. The only significant contributor is User:Dr.Monique.Akassi, so it is most likely an autobiography for self-promotion. Other users performed only trivial maintenance tasks and removal of blatant promotion. The only reference/external link is to her website, but that still blocks a BLP PROD as I understand it. BethNaught (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assistant professors are rarely notable and, with zero cites on GS, this one is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Subject has potential; article created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article contains no evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria, and the circumstances within the article (e.g. her relatively junior status in academia) make a pass unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2014 (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. While the G7 speedy on the article that is the subject of the other discussion does not apply here, they are essentially identical so the AFD consensus does apply. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Williams[edit]

Cheryl Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An almost identical article, Cheryl Williams (Character), was deleted per this discussion. The author has now created it once again. I nominated it for speedy deletion per WP:G4; however, that was turned down by an admin due to the title change. G S Palmer (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hary Nur Paimin[edit]

Hary Nur Paimin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one-sentence unreferenced BLP shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I looked for some sources, but couldn't find any, so I'm not sure this athlete even exists. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Ignore this, it's also been CSD'd. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed CSD and added a BLP PROD template; let us run this AfD anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. In that case, you know where my vote stands! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zuan Xin[edit]

Zuan Xin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability. References only indicate the subject exists. Likely autobiography; inflated sense of importance and persecution. Blackguard 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article text does not assert any specific claims meeting WP:BIO criteria, nor do sources more than confirm the bare facts given. - Vianello (Talk) 04:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No details about where and when he was born. Hardly any results too. OccultZone (Talk) 14:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is about the developer of a strategy pushed by Macau Casino World that appears to be based on Gambler's Fallacy. Not noteworthy even if the article had been fully developed.Objective3000 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2014 (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FairShares Association[edit]

FairShares Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Association that does not meet the notability criteria for organizations. Current sources in the article are not independent as they come from the association or its leadership, or they are not reliable in the case of the association's wiki. An attempt to find news or books discussing this association was unsuccessful, and therefore, I recommend deletion. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2014 (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) 19:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2014[edit]

List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is merely a listing of election candidates, thus failing WP:IINFO and should be deleted like other pages like AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates. Wikipedia is not a place to promote candidates in the run up to elections. Min2winit (Min2winit)

  • Keep I want to tell nominator that this is a neutral list not promoting any candidate or party. National Democratic Alliance is major political force in India where Aam Aadmi Party is only Delhi's state Party.Prateek MalviyaTalk 04:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the Article created by me, I have followed all the Wikipedia Rules and it is kept in a neutral point of view without promoting any party or alliance. It is simply an encyclopedic information about NDA a major Political force in India which is contesting in all the 543 Parliament seats for General Election 2014. It is a related document with Indian general election, 2014 and National Democratic Alliance (India). If you see this list as a promotion, even the article pages of Politcal parties like INC,BJP,AAP all can be said as promotion in someone's view. We Wikipedia follow a neutral point of view in all the articles without promoting any organization or political parties. Regards Sanatan2014 (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's argument is completely invalid. NDA is a major force in Indian politics which is expected to win this election. On the other hand, AAP is a new political party which only has very less presence all over the country except Delhi. I don't see even a single way in which this list promoted the BJP or its alliance. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a neutral list, no harm in keeping wikipedia. And also, once election gets over, the list will be updated with results. So it is highly encyclopedic info. Nahasau (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conclusion Hence majority of WIkipedians oppose nominators argument. Lets remove the Deletion tag from the page. Thank you all.. Warm Regards Sanatan2014 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not how it works. A handful of people voting Keep does not automatically end the discussion. And if a week from now, the majority of people have voted Keep, the page may still be deleted if the votes for Delete are considered more persuasive as per Wikipedia policy. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
209 is correct. A discussion stays active for seven days unless there's absolute unanimity that it should be closed early for policy-based reasons. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (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. Walter Görlitz convinced me after pointing out the part in WP:MUSICBIO that I missed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Huff (musician)[edit]

David Huff (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though this musician has participated in some possibly-notably bands, as a stand-alone article and solo musician, this musician/article fails WP:MUSICBIO. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit Roosevelt III[edit]

Kermit Roosevelt III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Since the proposed deletion was removed (although no explanation for the objection was given), I am nominating for deletion. As I said in the proposed deletion, this article fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage from any reliable third-party sources. The only reliable sources that talk about him do so just briefly, and the rest are staff profiles (i.e. Yale profile) and a review of his book. Material he wrote himself does not count as notable coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - he passes my standards for notability for lawyers and/or professors: he was a SCOTUS law clerk, and he wrote a leading text on conflict of laws. Book reviews are good sources. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the book review barely mentions him and is predominantly about the book itself. The book review was also the only reliable source that went in depth on anything affiliated with him (not counting family affiliations). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?. GS h-index of 12 may miss WP:Prof. Not much else. Much is made of subject's family background. May be too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • As far as I can tell from WP:PROF criteria, fails all of WP:NACADEMICS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, The myth of judicial activism, currently in more than 1,000 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Has an h-index of 12 based on GS, with one pub. with more than 100 citations to it.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if his book is in lots of libraries, there are still no reliable third-party sources that go in-depth on him, which is why he fails WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be more careful with your edits - you broke the link to my user account.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A book review in the NYT by Alan Dershowitz seems like a high level of notability for an author to me. It doesn't bother me that the review doesn't talk about his birthday or his culinary preferences; it's about his works, what he's notable for. And his book The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions has 125 scholarly citations (i.e. 125 reliable sources about this one book, though likely most not very in-depth), and some of his other publications also have relatively high numbers of citations, possibly not enough by themselves for WP:PROF#C1 (I'm not sure) but certainly enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • One review alone isn't noteworthy, and since you mention WP:BIO1E seems like this actually is a case of that. My point was that the only reliable sources that ever mention him only do so briefly. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the problem with keeping this article:
      • ref#1: Only a passing mention
      • ref#2: Inconclusive (ref cannot be found)
      • ref#3: Dead ref
      • ref#4: Barely even mentions man himself
      • ref#5: Barely even mentions man himself
      • ref#6: Barley even mentions man himself
      • ref#7: Barely even mentions man himself
      • External link#1: University profile: Not a third-party source
      • External link#2: No coverage, only lists books published
      • External link#3: No coverage, only summary of a book
    • Even if ref#2 had in-depth coverage, we would need multiple reliable third-party sources that go in depth on him. Therefore he fails notability per WP:GNG whether WP:PROF#1 is met or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Economy of Characters[edit]

Law of Economy of Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this really a notable concept? Ebert made it up and wrote it in his book, but there really isn't anything else to say about it. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Looking in Google Books, I do not see very much mention of the term outside of Ebert's own works. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Other writers have made similar points - see Chekhov's gun, for example. The concept might be merged into foreshadowing, per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, my concern with merging is that this term comes from a movie glossary by Ebert. That glossary has a lot of other terms that he came up with. Another one is "Law of Economy of Instruction", for example. In other words, this term is not something he coined then focused on in his book. He reeled off a string of clever terms. So we should evaluate if this particular term has value to independent sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing to merge. It's a dictionary definition with a primary source. We need secondary sources to establish notability, and citing primary sources does not do that. Could be redirected to Roger Ebert or foreshadowing. This isn't TV Tropes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Marenco[edit]

Pedro Marenco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2014 (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. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes other than the nominator (non-admin closure). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Ingleby[edit]

John Ingleby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure that AfD is the right place for this, but I can't think where else to go. This pages claims to be a disambiguation page, i.e. a page that directs readers to articles with the same or similar names. However, there are no articles named John Ingleby or similar (as the red links show) so there is nothing to disambiguate and thus no need for a disambiguation page. Emeraude (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the right place to start the discussion. You can have redlinked entries, provided they have the potential to become articles and there are suitable blue links, per Wikipedia:Red link#Disambiguation pages (for the bishop, see [1], which has two paragraphs about his doings; some of these details are also in Ripley Castle). I've added those. (I'm not quite sure what the "onlyinclude" bit does.) I've also found a politician and a painter. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Please see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. User:Emeraude, when you've looked other the relevant guidelines, could you please look at withdrawing this nomination? Additionally, as creator, I should have been informed that this was nominated for deletion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a valid collection of links to pages providing some information about these various people, and a way to help future editors ensure that they use the form of a name already established as a red link, rather than creating an entry at a new title. There's no possible benefit to the encyclopedia from deleting a page like this. PamD 14:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. I was concerned that the page had NO blue link at all, and the guidelines mentioned do not clearly cover such a case. However, the work on the page by Clarityfiend and Boleyn has sorted this. And to Boleyn, my apologies for not notifying you. I should have done, but I'm currently using a lousy, constantly-crashing connection in France! Emeraude (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I hadn't realised another user had removed the bluelinks from the page I originally created. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2014 (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) 19:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Time-Banks around the World[edit]

List of Time-Banks around the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CSC. Currently it is a list of one, which itself is a redlink. It is unlikely most other entries that could be added have articles. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CSC. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has been improved dramatically since the proposed delectation date. Every day there is some enhancement to look of the data and the content has been built up very quickly and others are trying to help adding more content as well. --Alrawassam (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC),[reply]
  • Comment please see the article's talk page. --Alrawassam (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; poorly-sourced spam-masquerading-as-listcruft; I suspect it's actually a list of timebanks which use a certain software package. (I'm not sure why, but our main articles on timebanking seem to suffered from a lot of timebanking software spam in recent years). bobrayner (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wp is not a directory. this is an example of a list which should absolutely be published, on a website, but not here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Kerimov[edit]

Sahil Kerimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. C679 14:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 14:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Azerbaijan league is no longer considered FPL. Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another article that doesn't meet the football notability requirements, and thus ought to go. Ducknish (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas Gurbanov[edit]

Ilyas Gurbanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. C679 14:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 14:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (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. There is a clear consensus that the coverage of this book in reliable sources is sufficient to establish its notability. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Consuming Artifacts[edit]

Self-Consuming Artifacts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-unreferenced article, not notable per WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think suitable references can be found for this book. As a first example, a 1998 article in Philological Quarterly says "Stanley Fish in his influential Self-Consuming Artifacts" ([2], via Highbeam, subscription reqd) and another, also via Highbeam, talks of "Fish's oft-cited claim in Self-Consuming Artifacts" ([3]). AllyD (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added various references, including some opinions of Fish's book. Google Books and Google Scholar searches turn up more, enough in my view to meet WP:NBOOK. AllyD (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AllyD's changes. EBstrunk18 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as the refs noted, it was reviewed in English Language Notes[4] and Diacritics[5]. Fish is a very well-known and respected academic, so even if it wasn't notable a merge would be more suitable than deletion, but this book clearly meets notability standards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with thanks to AllyD who has improved the article and demonstrated notability in the process. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:50, 14 April 2014 (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 WP:SNOW keep (also withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) satellizer (talk - contributions) 01:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H1Z1[edit]

H1Z1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Withdrawn by the nominator'. Someone close this. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier written as an unsourced unambiguous advertisement. One user removed G11, and added a reference. This article is about a game released yesterday by Sony Entertainment, perhaps qualify WP:TOOSOON. As it was released by reputed company Sony Entertainment, It was attracted by media sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper explains, "while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This appears to be a major title release from a major player in the gaming industry. It attracted media attention because major releases from major companies are notable. Not having an article about this title would be as silly as not having an article about The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, a film that is not due for release for almost two years, but which is still notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Just because it was released by a "major player in the gaming industry", the subject doesn't turn itself notable. And, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been considered a good rationale to !vote keep/delete. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current content of the article is not great, but this is a high-profile video game title and is absolutely encyclopedic. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 13:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think that WP:TOOSOON applies here. It is officially announced by one of the largest companies in the world and will have unique properties. This is going to move beyond the news stage and I look forward to the expansion of this article from it's current sparse look. - Pmedema (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by the nominator - WP:DUCKSEASON. All keep !votes here, has a common rationale, that it is notable "because it is released by Sony Entertainment" and because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. *ignore WP:NOTINHERITED* Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sources that may or may not exist in the future don't count. We need sources that exist now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A simple Google search on the term "H1Z1" will show that this game's announcement has lit up the internet, with coverage in PC Gamer, IGN, Gamespot, Metro UK, Shack News, EuroGamer, and N4G, to name but a few. I'm at work now, and my office internet policy forbids me access to these sites, so I can't readily evaluate them aside from the Google preview snatch, but the amount of coverage for this game release is substantial. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I feel the article's subject is notable enough to warrant an article, but only just. Rilech (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have expanded the article a little bit, adding reference and infobox. Rilech (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems fair to assume we'll will soon have enough info to build a valuable article about this AAA game. Some good coverage already: Polygon (2), GameSpot,PC Gamer, others... It would be annoying to go through the deletion/restoration processes just because of a debatable WP:TOOSOON application, that will anyway be made irrelevant in the weeks to come. --JimeoWan (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by the nominator - When we'll have secondary, independent coverage rather than the "one-day-release-event-coverage", we'll restore this article (may be at the end of the month?). All sources are either press-releases or a simple media-coverage of the release-event of a game by "Sony Entertainment". It, for now, is more suitable for Wikinews not Wikipedia. Oh! wait, sources are on their way and would be reaching here anytime soon!, is NOT a reason to keep this article for now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All in good faith, I can't find which policy backs these arguments. As far as I can tell, nothing prevents early/recent coverage from being enough to justify an article. In general I'd tend to compare the current situation with this movie-related policy, which seems to be on the "Keep" side. --JimeoWan (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's already enough third party coverage out there to justify an article. Rather than wasting time deleting and recreating, we ought to just work on improving how it is now. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I may not have made this myself and opted to wait on more sources, but there was definitely enough interest (more than just reiterating the press release) to justify notability and thus this should be kept, even if its far out from release. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since there's a naysayer or two aggressively against it, I'll back up the claims of sources. Below are all sources that have consensus to be deemed reliable/usable per discussions linked at WP:VG/S, and have dedicated articles (not passing mentions) discussing the game in significant detail:
  1. http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/10/5600294/H1Z1-mmo-coming-4-6-weeks
  2. http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/10/sony-reveals-new-mmo-h1z1
  3. http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/9/5598202/h1z1-zombie-mmo-sony-online-entertainment
  4. http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/9/5599530/sony-online-entertainment-spills-details-on-post-apocalyptic-mmo-h1z1
  5. http://metro.co.uk/2014/04/10/first-footage-of-h1z1-sonys-zombie-apocalypse-mmo-4694365/
  6. http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/10/soe-shows-h1z1-its-new-zombie-mmo/
  7. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-09-sony-online-entertainments-myserious-h1z1-project-unveiled-tonight
  8. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-reveals-new-post-apocalyptic-mmo-game-h1z1/1100-6418884/
  9. http://www.vg247.com/2014/04/09/h1z1-teaser-site-opens-sony-online-entertainments-new-project-to-be-revealed-soon/

Plenty of sources, plenty enough content to start up an article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, Comment by the nominator - Well, people have been more than sure, that, it'd be notable sometime after, and it is a waste of time to delete and create the same article! So keep it. Good one. I do not care for any person's time being wasted to delete and re-create this article. If people do care for time being wasted to delete and re-create an article, they should open a RfC to abandon AfD, ProD and CSD processes. Coming back to the topic, Article is about a game released yesterday by a company, many person seem to be a fan of, doesn't meet notability standard. All sources, are "release-event-source". I would argue, people here are trying to establish one event notability. Yes, the game is notable for one event, for being released by the Sony Entertainment. Look, it is Abc news, and a game has been released or is about to release, by the company Sony Entertainment, and it follows all where as it is plague. Its feature made known by the company is, XXXX (page full, substantial coverage?). All sources do mention the same content, their ways! Bottom line, it should be deleted because it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia notability guideline. One event notability and future sources, has never been an acceptable argument, to keep an article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. What you're saying would apply if the articles were simply. "Sony announces video game H1z1, will release more details next month". That's not what the sources supplied are though. They're all multi-paragraph articles dedicated entirely to the topic. They may reference a press release, but none are actual press releases, but rather, info written by the respective journalists. You're setting the bar far higher than what the WP:GNG denotes, and that's why no one is agreeing with you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no one to set GNG bar higher or lower than, what present it is. If ever, it'd be done, would be done by the community using consensus, not by any single person. Every person reserve their right to disagree with me or anyone. I'm just not agree with people, who here arguing to keep the present article as, it is a waste of time to "delete and recreate", hence keep it, "Future sources" would be coming, hence keep it, "WP:Otherstuffexists", hence keep it. I simply can not accept these rationale to go agree with the people here. No one actually is presenting a valid counter argument here, I say, it fails GNG, whatever sources are, one-event-source (even multiple reliable sources), one-event-notability doesn't warrant an article, it was released yesterday, might be a case of WP:Toonsoon, it is presumed to be notable here, because it was released by the Sony entertainment, well, WP:Notinherited. It surely may be notable in future (next day, week or month), but I am not in favor to keep it till then. If it has to be kept, I'd like to see a solid argument. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not citing WP:NOTNEWS correctly. That applies to events, not products. This article isn't about the event of the reveal, but rather, it's about the product itself. (Otherwise it would be titled something like Sony's reveal of H1Z1 video game or something ludicrous like that.) NOTNEWS is to keep there from being an article every time a local news station does a story about routine petty crimes or a story about kittens being stuck in a tree. Not products, like this.
  • Also, you're not summarizing my stance very well. From a practical standpoint, I think its a waste of time to delete. On a policy-based standpoint, it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the most direct following of the GNG there is, and that's why I feel it should be kept. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why don't we focus our attention on making the article reach standards instead of arguing whether it is already there or not. There is much more productive things we can do, besides, I don't think anyone can debate that this article will be created again if it gets deleted anyway, because sources are abundant and nobody can deny that, and a ton of information has been released, and nobody can deny that. I just guess the point of this comment is perhaps we should devote this energy to bettering the article itself. Rilech (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Article has a title, "H1Z1" not "Sony's reveal of H1Z1 video game", hence it does have nothing to do with the event thing? Contents and sources are all about the event, a new game has been released and it is said to have following interesting features. This is all this article and sources, about. This way, it relates itself to NOTNEWS. It'd exempt itself from NOTNEWS and reach GNG only, if it find its mention in multiple reliable sources that doesn't deal with the only release-event and discuss the product on behalf of themselves not press-release. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rilech:- I'll be happy to improve the present article myself, but it'd be all about the event, how it was released, and what sources did cover the release-event. One needs to wait some time long to get sources on other aspects of the product, like, review of H1Z1 by XXX, good/bad game, H1Z1 UI rocks/sucks, blah blah blah by AAA, BBB and many sources respectively. By the way, what improvements do you guess, is missing and should be made? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument perfectly, friend. What I am saying is that in my opinion, as well as an administrator who has already said what I am saying to you, as well as all the "keeps" that have been presented on the article, agree that it meets the criteria according to Wikipedia standards and articles that have already been kept in the past. If you want, I can find you 1000 old versions of articles showing what they looked like when they were first created and a lot would be sub-par to this article. It completely is backed by reliable sources about the reveal. Also, it wasn't necessarily an "event" or an official press conference. It was a developer explaining the game and what it is, which has been covered extensively in many of the articles that @Sergecross73: presented, which are RS in accordance with those listed at its associated WikiProject. Rilech (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to tell you other than, "No, you're wrong." I'll just let the consensus form unless/until a different argument arises. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's try to summarize the arguments here.
    • Keep: WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable, independant sources)
    • Delete: WP:TOOSOON (unknown release date, not much to include yet), WP:SPECULATION (we can't tell yet whether the game itself will be notable)
    • Keep non-arguments: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (don't justify this article by comparing it to others), WP:NOTINHERITED (the fact that the game is by Sony is not enough to make it deserve an article)
    • Delete non-arguments: WP:NOTNEWS (the article is not about an event but a game, the fact that sources are recent and mainly written with the same press release as primary source is not related)

Feel free to argue if you disagree with this. Anyway, at this point, I'll say the gist of the debate is: can we can safely assume, from the existing sources, that the game itself will be notable? --JimeoWan (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think we need to assume it will be notable. Even if nothing ever comes of the game, it will have been notable given its existing coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Sergecross73 and the multiple independent reliable sources he's located that cover the topic in depth. I agree with JimeoWan's summary and frankly "Keep: WP:GNG" is adequate and sufficient rationale to keep. TOOSOON is an essay, not a guideline like GNG, and CRYSTAL (AKA WP:SPECULATION) doesn't apply because this is a demonstrably verifiable topic. -Thibbs (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but this needs some work. So far it looks to have some good reliable sources backing it, enough to meet the GNG in my eyes. It absolutely does need more content, plenty of touchup, and may be a little soon, but I think we're just enough over the threshold of notability here, and that's coming from a self-identified deletionist-mergist-redirectionist. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep It already received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Technology Group(ITG)[edit]

Integrated Technology Group(ITG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company with not apparent notability. A couple of industry awards (is there a company in the world that can't claim one of these?), but no real indications of significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking reliable claims of sufficient notability. ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2014 (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadj M'rizek[edit]

Hadj M'rizek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any particular deletion rationale? Stalwart111 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2014 (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Keener[edit]

Stephen Keener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any particular deletion rationale? Stalwart111 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily closed as wrong venue (and badly formatted); this would belong on redirects for discussion. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gunner's daughter[edit]

Redirect leads to a subsection of the page which was removed in 2006; no mention of subject in the redirected article at all. --Enyavar (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2014 (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. No reliable sources indicate that this is a notable book by our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonizing the Hindu Mind[edit]

Decolonizing the Hindu Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are hundreds of articles in the Book stub cat, many of them more obscure than this one; so why is this one being singled out? If the article is too short or missing sources, you could first have asked for them. You didn't even notify the deletion sorting lists about this nomination for deletion. The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination. Not liking what a book says is not really a good reason for voting for its deletion; in fact it is a very bad reason. Book pages are absolutely relevant to Wikipedia. I think a lot of people are voting because they don't like the idea of the book. The problem is not that his works are not notable, the problem is that the author is very controversial. It is a very controversial author, so that even 20 years after the publication, some people still advocate to shun him and censor his writings (I'm not referring to the nominator for deletion).
It is not only the book article which should be expanded and also enlarged with sources, it it the author article itself which has serious NPOV problems, according to this link: [6]
Elsts books on Hindu revivalism, of which this one is one of the most prominent, are often discussed by professors, scholars, critics. Elst also participated/published his Hindu revivalism research in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books (for example by professors Arvind Sharma, Edwin Bryant & Laurie Patton,Herman Siemens & Vasti Roodt,Hans Geybels & Walter Van Herck, Angela Marcantonio & Girish Nath Jha, and more)and bestellers (Daniel Pipes book), and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. He is widely seen as the main or one of the main propenents "sympathetic" to the "Hindu side", for example by critical scholars like Meera Nanda or also by many Hindu authors. His books have been reviewed and discussed by Harvard professors, other professors, leading scholars and journalists (Sanjay Subramaniam, Meera Nanda....). What more can one ask? Some of his books have been translated into other languages. Elst says, "I have crossed swords with Mira Kamdar, Christophe Jaffrelot, Meera Nanda, Amber Habib, MF Husain as well as his critics, DN Jha, Harbans Mukhia, Wiliam Dalrymple, Edward Said, Ramachandra Guha, Ashish Nandy, Edward Luce, Vikas Swarup, Martha Nussbaum etc. The record shows that I have not limited myself to the gullible and the already-converted."
Of course many papers cite the book, but this one cites the book 5 times A World of Passions: How to Think About Globalization Now Jedediah Purdy Duke Law School --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book is certainly notable, with a noteworthy author,and it was a besteller for Rupa publications (a major publishing house).
Some quotes:
"The book version of most of his Ph.D. thesis, defended in 1998. A very thorough treatment of the Hindu movement since before its official genesis in the 1920s and until the very end of the 1990s. Unlike other Westerners, he has been able to get a real inside look in the Hindu movement. Even rarer, he has been able to shed the usual bias that dooms this line of research to a very jaundiced view and to laughter among future generations. He shows how “nationalism is a misstatement of Hindu concerns”."
"In 2001, Rupa published the bulky book version of my PhD thesis, and reported to me that it became a bestseller. It is not the usual RSS self-praise but not the usual RSS-bashing of the "experts" either" --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)— Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as nothing noteworthy. References are self-published and unreliable. Iniciativass (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~50 holdings per Worldcat. Not finding any reviews in reliable sources. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Worldcat is not reliable at all for India, even extremely well known books show only 1 or 2 results in India.--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book was reviewed by well known authors, by N.S. Rajaram [7] and by Ayub Khan in the monthly magazine Communalism Combat [8] and also at [9].
It was a best-seller at Rupa & Co.
It contains main parts of his Ph.D. thesis at a well known university.
Professor Edwin Bryant notes: "His PhD dissertation on Hindu nationalism, Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, became a best-seller in India". [1]
Summary: This book is clearly notable, it was a best-seller at a major publishing house, was reviewed both favourably and very critically by well-known critics, and is based on the main parts of his Ph.D. thesis at a major university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Page vii in The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton RoutledgeCurzon, 2005 ISBN 0700714626, 9780700714629
  • The N. S. Rajaram review is self-published; the Khan review is in a blog. Actual best-sellers generate newspaper and magazine reviews. Absent that kind of coverage, we can't establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews are clearly not self-published, as you could have found out yourself, the Ayub Khan review was published in the monthly magazine Combat Communalism, while N.S. Rajaram, a well-known author, published it in the Naimisha Journal (and likely there are also reviews elsewwhere, remember, this was over 10 years ago, when the Internet looked much different than today).
But there will always be editors who have a problem with the views of a controversial book or author, no matter which source is used. You are in fact indirectly calling him a fascist on this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam which is a very serious BLP violation. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cites? As in volume, number, page and date? I'd love to be shown wrong here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In additon , there is also this reference about the book in Hinduism Today: Hindu Studies: Warring with Words. Elst, Koenraad Hinduism Today, Jul 01, 2009; Vol. 31, No. 3, p. 53-57. I don't have access to the journal but saw the reference here http://encore.library.cofc.edu/iii/encore/search/C__Skashmir+%C5%9Baivism__Orightresult/SdoArticles?lang=eng&suite=pearl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the title into google brings it right up. It's a excerpt from the book. No help for notability, I'm afraid. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Hinduism Today also has some comments on the book:
Scholarly Tomes
India's major social movements, such as the RSS and its political action group, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and related organizations, deliver a unique expression of Hindutva. Dr. Koenraad Elst's presentation, Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism (657 pages, Rupa & Co. Publishers, Rs. 595) details the 1988-1998 period when "mass campaigns and electoral victories brought Hindu revivalist leaders to the front pages worldwide. The presence of the BJP in Parliament is an eloquent indicator of this stormy evolution. It had few allies in 1996 and a great many in 1998." If you want to understand the modern evolution of Hindutva, this is the book for you.
Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism by Dr. Koenraad Elst, Rupa & Co. 7/16 Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi 110 002 India. https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?com_mode=thread&com_order=0&itemid=4110
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is part of a string of recent articles of books by the same author within the same field and with the same unsatisfactory level of notability. It just doesn't quite make it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This link shows that the discussion around this book is still ongoing in 2014, years after publication. http://centreright.in/2014/01/decolonizing-the-indian-mind/#.U0gBDFdEmbG --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Book review : http://www.sandeepweb.com/2006/11/06/book-review-decolonizing-the-hindu-mind/ --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BKUNIX[edit]

BKUNIX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hobby operating system. WP:NSOFT not met, no third-party references. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing can be found about this at all (primary or secondary); fails notability. This article should've been speedy deleted under WP:A7. --CyberXRef☎ 21:47, 17 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Walser[edit]

Miles Walser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. The page is advert to promote the person, written by a single-purpose account. The sources in the article are from subject's own book, website or Youtube page. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably too soon for this person. I saw an article or two in local papers, but there isn't really enough to satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It always seems to be kind of a red flag when you see the majority of an article's sources happen to come from the article's subject and in this case I think it is reflective of a lack of notability. Ducknish (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapod_(bottle)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aquapod_(bottle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Article seems to be about a form factor of packaging used by nestle for water and juices. The specific item seems to be a short stubby plastic bottle. I don't see anything remarkable about the bottle deserving notoriety. nor has it gained much from what i am aware. Not aware of anyone going to a store and asking for the bottle based on its shape over other shapes. Aside from that article seems to exist in the food space and is a blatant advertisement and seems to have an incorrect opening sentence to boot. Since its marketed under different brands, its not a water product on its own. Philosopher kat (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more reason ,Its actually not even advertized on the web-link provided ( http://www.polandspring.com/#/products/our_products).Philosopher kat (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Seems to be just another brand name. I found some passing references about marketing to kids in the bottled water political advocacy material but not enough to justify an article. Note that the topic is heavily masked by a science toy of the same name that launches soda bottle rockets. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get on the Floor (J-Walk song)[edit]

Get on the Floor (J-Walk song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient, if any, secondary source coverage. No album article to merge into. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 02:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:05, 10 April 2014 (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 Koenraad Elst. Redirect given the non-trivial hits found by User:Tokyogirl79. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate[edit]

Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am finding some mention of it in some history books as a reference and example of its type of book, so hopefully I can find something to justify a keep. If not, then it should probably be redirected to the author's page. Maybe sources exist in another language? ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are hundreds of articles in the Book stub cat, many of them more obscure than this one; so why is this one being singled out? If the article is too short or missing sources, you could first have asked for them. You didn't even notify the deletion sorting lists about this nomination for deletion. The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination. Not liking what a book says is not really a good reason for voting for its deletion; in fact it is a very bad reason. Book pages are absolutely relevant to Wikipedia. I think a lot of people are voting because they don't like the idea of the book. The problem is not that his works are not notable, the problem is that the author is very controversial. It is a very controversial author, so that even 20 years after the publication, some people still advocate to shun him and censor his writings (I'm not referring to the nominator for deletion).
It is not only the book article which should be expanded and also enlarged with sources, it it the author article itself which has serious NPOV problems, according to this link: [15]
The book is arguably the most well known and most cited publication on the Aryan Invasion controversy on the Hindu side. There are enough sources to show this as notable, which you could have found out by yourself easily enough (google). His book and his views on the Aryan invasion debate were reviewed and discussed by Harvard professors and many other professors, including Michael Witzel, George Cardona, Edwin Bryant, Hans Hock, and many more. Some sources were cited above by Tokyo Girl, but there are many more. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is no issue with stubs as long as they denote notability.Rather than pasting the same comments in Afd, if you have reliable sources that will get the article across the line in terms of the criteria at WP:NBOOK then add them to the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • The book and his views on the Aryan invasion debate were discussed by Harvard professor Michael Witzel[2] and other professores, including George Cardona[3], Edwin Bryant[4] , Hans Hock[5].
  • Witzel also argued: "Elst disingeneously insists on calling any migration or even a “trickling in” an

“invasion.” However, immigration/trickling in and acculturation obviously are entirely different from a (military) invasion, or from overpowering and/or eradicating the local population."[6]

Comment: Like in other articles that Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) nominated for deletion, he has also blanked sources I added during this deletion discussion. Please make sure to read the article history to also see what Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) deleted. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean all this crap? Which you copied and pasted from another article, and has nothing at all to do with the book? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why has it nothing to do with the book? The first and most important part were such showing that the book is discussed in books of the Aryan Invasion debate. Why did you delete that part? The second part is about one controversy that started from Elst's research in this book. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to read WP:NOR, as that is what you appear to be engaging in here. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Michael Witzel in The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History by Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton RoutledgeCurzon, 2005 ISBN 0700714626, 9780700714629
  2. ^ for example in Michael Witzel in The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History by Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton RoutledgeCurzon, 2005 ISBN 0700714626, 9780700714629
  3. ^ Cardona, George. The Indo-Aryan languages, RoutledgeCurzon; 2002 ISBN 0-7007-1130-9
  4. ^ The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture By Edwin Bryant. Oxford University Press
  5. ^ Michael Witzel in The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History by Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton RoutledgeCurzon, 2005 ISBN 0700714626, 9780700714629
  6. ^ Michael Witzel in The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History by Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton RoutledgeCurzon, 2005 ISBN 0700714626, 9780700714629
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First of all, the book is only mentioned in passing and so it actually fails the general notability guideline, in addition to the specific guideline on books. Second, there is an odd trend of what seems like OR here to promote otherwise non-notable books by the same author, and a number of bunk articles of this nature related to this book's author and his topic area have popped up in the past month. It seems like an awfully suspicious fan-page type of push. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question What are the articles that "have popped up in the past month"? This article has been around since 7 July 2005. You can give valid reasons to delete, but to claim (in multiple deletion discussions) that articles were created in the last month seems disingenuous (unless of course it's just a mistake). Shreevatsa (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2014 (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 SuckSeed. Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nattasha Nauljam[edit]

Nattasha Nauljam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced, short article with the most signficant information and role being SuckSeed. In the best interest of the article, it's probably better to redirect to SuckSeed to leave the door open for a future article. It seems she had one small film afterwards, Just A Second. Several news searches including with Thai (English text only) newspapers Bangkok Post, Phuket Gazette, The Nation (this one provided some results for the film but not for her) and Phuket News. There's nothing to enlarge this article and there doesn't seem to be any plans of movies and her Facebook shows mostly recent personal photos. Actress best known for one movie and seems to be living a rather normal life again. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for the subject. Appears to not meet WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica1000 06:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, as per WP:GNG. If coverage is found and refs add to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2014 (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. I am closing this as "keep", because nobody is advancing any strong case for deletion. The issues raised here are not for AfD, but for normal editing. As for whether or not Mary cigarettes is Mr. Gray is immaterial to this discussion. Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Gray[edit]

Gregory Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am requesting a courtesy deletion of the article on this person, as he is marginally notable, and it appears that the subject has been systematically removing sourced information, so that its now an unreferenced biography. the last stable article version was at [16], to show what has been removed. if User:Mary cigarettes is Mr. Gray, they can either argue for its deletion or its being kept, but if its kept, it should be restored to the largest fully sourced version prior to this editing. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Return to old revision or else delete: I'm not finding many reliable sources for Gregory Gray or Mary Cigarettes, but the old revision seems passable. Without any refs, merging doesn't seem like a good idea. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i just got a nice notice from the article subject acknowledging his freshman editing efforts. If he states here that he doesnt want it blanked, I will withdraw my nom and then restore the article, if thats the result of the AFD.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AuI ConverteR 48x44[edit]

AuI ConverteR 48x44 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement for commercial software: no indication of notability; no references (except copyright registration!) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search turns up no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:47, 10 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuji Flyer[edit]

Fuji Flyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Reason for proposed deletion: why would a company newspaper, even if that company is a large US Air Force base, be a notable subject? Every major company (school, ...) has an internal newspaper or magazine, but most of them don't have nor warrant articles here. Please indicate why this would be an exception to that rule. The prod was removed because the newspaper had good quality and content, but this is not, under Wikipedia rules, a reason to have an article on a subject. Significant attention in reliable, independent (i.e. not government or military related) sources is what is needed here. Fram (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There's this article in Stars and Stripes. Per the Stars and Stripes "about us" page here (at the end of the first section), it "...is a service of the Defense Media Activity; the views and opinions expressed do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the military services or the Defense Media Activity." Stars and Stripes appears likely to be funded by, but editorially independent of Defense Media Activity, which is a department within the U.S. Department of Defense. Per additional information about Stars and Stripes on their "about us" page below that which is quoted above, it states "Stars and Stripes is editorially independent of interference from outside its own editorial chain-of-command." (et al.) This qualifies this source as an independent, reliable source.
An interesting sidenote is that an amusement park of the same name exists at the Wet 'n Wild amusement park in Orlando, Florida, per [17]. NorthAmerica1000 13:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Independent" doesn't only men "editorially independent", also independent qua interests, funding, ... As you say, it is "a service of the Defense Media Activity", ruling it out as an independent source (so not usable for notability, it is still usable otherwise). It is not a source which has no connection to the Army but still considers the Fuji Flyer notable enough to warrant significant attention, which is wat we are looking for. Fram (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of reliable source coverage and discussion in multiple different references. — Cirt (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an important piece to keep around, good stuff. I realize that's no argument at AfD, but my interest in saving this is certainly piqued. Speaking in general, not this article, Wikipedia is all about sources. Therefore, articles about those sources — be they book publishers or newspapers or radio stations or television networks or magazines — should be considered component building blocks of the site. There is already a Stars and Stripes article showing in the footnotes counting as one source towards GNG. Time to dig for more. I'll be back... Carrite (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: Any success in finding further sources for this article? Fram (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep publications such as this one should at least have a stub article for reference value. Even without that, I believe it passes WP:NMEDIA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • NMEDIA is an essay, not an accepted notability guideline. The article subject doesn't pass WP:N. Not everything that can conceivably be used as a reference warrants an article, e.g. many local history publications and the like. Why should this one be an exception? Fram (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it should be an exception, I think it should be the standard. I aggree with the essay in general and there is no reason not to use it as a source. WP:ONLYESSAY addresses this (which is, of course, an essay). I'll grant that they don't have the strength of policy or even guideline, but they are worth consideration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing any reason to think that this internal newsletter is notable. These kinds of publications rarely receive any coverage in independent sources, and no sources have been offered in the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lent (producer)[edit]

Michael Lent (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Basically the article reads like a CV. Shritwod (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So what we have are a couple of book reviews (you can't use his own blog as a reliable source). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HarvEast Holding[edit]

HarvEast Holding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising and promo. Not enough independent sources to pass WP:GNG The Banner talk 14:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:CORP. sources merely confirm what the company does. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please let me know your opinion? I feel it's very likely that a company of this size and importance will have many reliable sources in the Ukrainian national press, as I assume there would be many sources for USA's one of the biggest agricultural companies.
  • comment We have to assess the existence of potential sources, and not merely the sources that are listed on the article. It is "one of the biggest agricultural companies" in Ukraine. Therefore I assume there should be enough reliable sources that establish it's notability. There is also an article about this company on WK:RU. As I read Russian, I'll make a research and get back with a vote.Dmatteng (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please allow this AfD to run for another 10 days. I hope LibStar would reconsider his position, but just in case he won't, I'll take a look and post reliable sources in the AfD. Dmatteng (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples of bylined news articles include:
 – NorthAmerica1000 06:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Mohammed[edit]

Ammar Mohammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. We don't list individual bloggers or even full-fledged journalists. Shritwod (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia includes bloggers and journalists, who are notable. Sources show he has over 200k Twitter followers, was called one of the top 30 most influential writers in the Arab world. Understood about the concerns in bigger picture of this editor but sources suggest some notability. -- GreenC 05:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:43, 10 April 2014 (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) NorthAmerica1000 04:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

72andSunny[edit]

72andSunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page created by the company. Promotional in that we are told nothing other than the awards it claims to have won (one is unverified). otherwise fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article as nominated was a barely-referenced stub. But I found a lot of coverage in a search. I have added half a dozen references to the article and I think it easily meets WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references discovered by MelanieN. Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the additions to the article look to be enough to establish notability for this company.  Gongshow   talk 03:46, 10 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Wolfe[edit]

Cody Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding any substantial, independent coverage via Google to establish notability under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, and none is given in the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suprised no-one tagged it as a hoax. Delete - non-notable Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's a hoax? Ignoring the April 1 story at the top of the page, he's got a website and social media pages. I see no reason to doubt his existence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:42, 10 April 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness is Here Parade[edit]

Happiness is Here Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedurally nominating; had been tagged with an AfD template pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival of Fantasy Parade, but was not actually included in the discussion. slakr\ talk / 03:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of notability, sourced only to Disney Parks' own blog. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2014 (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. Consensus is that we consider this a soft delete not subject to speedy deletion if and when the article is re-created with sufficiently claims to notability above and beyond what we have now. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BioReference Laboratories[edit]

BioReference Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Most news related items are press releases or non-notable facts of company's existence. Sole possible claim to notability is inclusion on Forbes list, but per WP:CORPDEPTH. "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak neutral for now but could be persuaded to go to WP:SOFTDELETE. The references are not nearly what is needed to demonstrate that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH but the fact that Reuters saw fit to write http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?rpc=66&symbol=BRLI.O gives me hope that such references could be found. If it turns out that this content was provided by the company then I'll change to DELETE. Likewise, if it turns out that Reuters has this level of depth on all NASDAQ stocks I will change to DELETE on the grounds that the coverage is "routine." Should quality references be added to the page, I could be persuaded to move to "weak keep" or even "keep." Should this deleted later and quality references found that clearly demonstrate notability, I have no objections to un-deletion provided the notability-demonstrating references are added to the page or talk page immediately after restoration. By the way, I marked two of the "longer" references as press releases. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the page needs to be expanded and more references needs to be searched. As it is a Listed company, there are higher chances that more reliable and independent references can be found. Mr RD 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOFTDELETE as almost all of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage as a result of NASDAQ listing. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys and Indies - The Epic History of the Record Industry[edit]

Cowboys and Indies - The Epic History of the Record Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could possibly be speedy deleted as a promotional page due to the article's tone. I started to clean it up, but I can't find enough (or anything really) to show how this passes notability guidelines. A speedy end would probably be the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page is deleted -the only reason this showed up as a blue link was because it was a redirect to the now-speedied page, which I've deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 12 April 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Marie Dimaculangan[edit]

Gertrude Marie Dimaculangan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient secondary source coverage (if at all). TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication that this is encyclopedically notable. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2014 (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 Sir Army Suit. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Routine Day[edit]

A Routine Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough third-party attention paid to this song. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Sir Army Suit, the song's parent album. Plausible search term as it's a single by a notable group, but I'm not finding coverage to show this can pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS.  Gong show 17:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:30, 10 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BRINT Institute[edit]

BRINT Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been tagged as possibly failing notability guidelines since 2009. I'm going to let the community be the judge on that one! SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 10 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Oduro[edit]

Benjamin Oduro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Possible vanity piece? Shritwod (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sno E. Blac[edit]

Sno E. Blac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Being best know as the voice in a video game is not really being well know. Shritwod (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or maybe redirect to the video game. Gets about 100 hits on Google, most of which are blogs, forums, and social media. IGN did an interview, but that's not enough to satisfy the GNG by itself. A custom WP:VG/RS search was similarly empty of results. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoCatch[edit]

GoCatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable company. Shritwod (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egerin[edit]

Egerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable startup company. Shritwod (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:25, 10 April 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cecile Raubenheimer[edit]

Cecile Raubenheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress with some minor roles, who appears to be working in the hotel trade. Shritwod (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyce Control[edit]

Nyce Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small company. All but one of the references provided are to company sites or ads. There is only one acceptable source, an article in a local business journal; not enough for notability. I could not find any additional sources in a search. MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Agarwal[edit]

Alok Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional material for a non-notable individual. Lacks non-trivial support for notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will add supporting reference and change tone to neutral as best as possible. What counts as 'non-trivial' support though? Dvidby0 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Davindra Singh[edit]

Davindra Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a biography of a living person without any reliable sources. Originally prodded by User:75.119.246.9. Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:20, 10 April 2014 (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--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The operacycle[edit]

The operacycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable musical work Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I couldn't find much (and so I understand the nomination) but the material added by Gongshow would seem to be enough to substantiate notability. Could use more work but its a good start. Stalwart111 07:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (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. AfD != cleanup, there really is no clear consensus on this one, article does require cleanup for NPOV issues / does require RS. Closed without prejudice Tawker (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ferrara[edit]

Christopher Ferrara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little more than a puffed-up CV/linkedin profile. Significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e. WP:N and WP:GNG are nowhere to be found. No profiles or coverage of him as a lawyer, the books authored are published by non-notable fringe press, such as Remnant Press, an obscure outfit classified as a hate group by the SPLC. The 3 refs in the article at present are to bio pages at the respective non-notable organizations. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above poster objects to Ferrera's religion and politics, ahrdly a reason to delete his biographical information. Here is a partial reason why the poster objects. Given the time of the post it may be that he listened to Mr Ferrera on The Mike Church show on Sirius Patriot Channel 125 this morning (4.2.14)
Christopher A. Ferrara. President and founder of the American Catholic Lawyers Association., Mr. Ferrara has been a chief Remnant columnist since 2000. He holds a BA from Fordham and a JD from Fordham University School of Law. Mr. Ferrara has distinguished himself as a champion of the unborn and the often persecuted defenders of the unborn. He has been involved in many landmark cases (including the effort to save the life of Terri Schiavo) and uses his skills as a highly successful lawyer to defend the traditional teachings and liturgy of the Church. He is a widely published author on Catholic Church affairs, authored EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong, The New Rosary, Secret Still Hidden: A Cover-up, and co-authored The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckHinners (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — ChuckHinners (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I gave quite sufficient reasons in the nomination statement, explaining why I believe this person does not satisfy this project's notability requirements. As for...whatever the hell the rest of that ranting was about...I neither own a Sirius device nor would I use such a device to listen to something such as this. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the problem is that the only sources that might be considered reliable are almost entirely negative. I mean, we might be able to create an article based on reliable sources but it's going to become a WP:WEIGHT issue if we ignore the negative in favour of the marginally positive like this review by the current president of the John Birch Society or this article by Anthony Cekada or this review by the current president of the Center for the American Idea. Most of what is available is material like this from people like Thomas Woods. Most of the puffery would have to be removed and replaced with reliably sourced content which wouldn't be very positive at all. Stalwart111 08:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. He's a lawyer. He's president of a non-notable lawyer's organization. He once spoke at the EU HQ. He's written some non-notable books. Nothing indicating notabily. TJRC (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except, TJRC, the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, right? Stalwart111 04:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the review of Mr. Ferrara "not notable book" on Amazon:

"Chris Ferrara's book most persuasively demonstrates that negative liberty is an idol and that liberalism is the last of the ideologies. Indeed he shows that it was the basic ideology hidden behind all the others." --John Milbank, University of Nottingham, author of Theology and Social Theory

"Highly readable and an intellectual landmark in Catholic ecclesiastical history. It should be read by everyone concerned with Christian theology and its political shaping of the society we live in." --Graham Ward, Regius Professor of Divinity, University of Oxford

"An absolutely epochal achievement--one of the finest historical studies I have ever read. Every true son of an America still waiting to be transformed in Christ owes the author a boundless debt of gratitude." --John Rao (D.Phil., Oxford); Associate Professor of History, St. John's University

"I've hardly been able to put it down since I opened it. The narrative is compelling from beginning to end and a pleasure to read. Rich in learning and insight, Liberty, the God That Failed is a tour de force--a marvelous achievement!" --Patrick McKinley Brennan, John F. Scarpa Chair in Catholic Legal Studies, Villanova University

Not notable? You must be joking. Woods's hit piece is answered by Ferrara here. This encyclopedia should not become a forum for personal grudges against Ferrara. Here is a listing of Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian as one of the Ten Best Books of 2010 according to Dale Ahlquist of Ignatius Press: [24]
Ferrara is also attorney of record in dozens of reported decisions, many of which are national or circuit precedents. The person demanding deletion seems motivated by animus, not knowledge of Ferrara's work. His citation of the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose credibility has been questioned by mainstream news organizations because of its reckless characterization of people as haters ([25]) indicates bias.Circa Corleone (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does, but you need to understand how notability is established here. Gushing praise from people with the same ideology is often not considered independent of the subject. Woods' article is not a "hit piece" at all - the two wrote a book together in 2002 and 8 years later found themselves on either side of a vexed debate about libertarianism and the role of the Catholic Church in American neo-conservatism. It's unfortunate that they've had a fairly public falling out but notability here is not going to be established by blogs-at-10-paces. The problem is that just as Ferrara has come into conflict with Woods, he has also come into conflict with others and its is those sources that are most prominent. As I said above, I believe he meets the threshold set by WP:GNG but supporters of the article need to understand what is likely going to happen if the article is kept. Stalwart111 04:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Gushing praise from people of the same ideology" could be applied to anyone whose books are favorably reviewed in the realm of politics. That "gushing praise" is precisely what the books are notable, especially "gushing praise" from world renowned writers like John Milbank and Graham Ward.
I find it odd that you cite "conflict with others" as a reason to delete, while minimizing support for Ferrara's work as "gushing praise from people of the same ideology." What about "unfair criticism from people of opposing ideologies." That Ferrara has provoked such controversy is precisely why his work is notable.
An exact name search produces 363,000 hits for Mr. Ferrara. As the author of six books and a renowned pro-life litigator, he is abundantly referenced and discussed on the Internet. The claim that he is not notable is absurd.Circa Corleone (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a personal recommendation one of Ferrara's books (The Secret Still Hidden) by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States: [26]
And also a very favorable review by Crisis magazine: [27]
Finding praise for Ferrara's work is not hard if you look for it.Circa Corleone (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read what has been written before jumping to conclusions and firing off another angry missive. I've not cited anything as a reason to delete the article - I'm the only person so far to have expressed a formal view that it should be kept. You're doing yourself no favours by angrily arguing with the one person so far who agrees with you. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a good reason for keeping an article. "Unfair criticism" can contribute to notability but the "unfair" part would need to be verified in independent sources. This is the problem I highlighted a few days ago - those that support him do so in blogs and forums not generally considered reliable sources for our purposes. The problem does apply equally to those in politics. Stalwart111 04:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My apologies. Here is an of Mr. Ferrara by Associated Press: [28]
Here is Mr. Ferrara participating in a BBC panel discussion as an expert: [29]
He is actually one of the most prominent traditional Catholic spokesmen in the world. The entry on Catholic traditionalists lists him as one of trad Catholic spokesmen in America. Also an NBC interview of Ferrara: [30]
A History Commons entry for one of Ferrara's notable legal cases:
Extended content
Profile: Christopher Ferrara

Christopher Ferrara was a participant or observer in the following events: May 16, 2002: Appeals Court Rules Anti-Abortion Posters, Web Sites Naming Abortion Providers a ThreatEdit event A federal appeals court in San Francisco rules that anti-abortion organizations who engage in the practice of distributing posters targeting abortion providers (see 1995 and After) are illegally threatening the lives and well-being of the people they are targeting. The 6-5 verdict also rules that Web sites such as The Nuremberg Files (see January 1997), which list doctors’ names and addresses and “lines out” the names of those doctors who are murdered, also threaten the lives of the named doctors. The defendants unsuccessfully claimed they were engaging in constitutionally protected political advocacy; the plaintiffs—four doctors and two health clinics—argued that the speech in question encouraged violence against abortion providers. The verdict overturns a previous three-judge ruling by the same court and reinstates a $109 million award for the plaintiffs. Writing for the majority, Judge Pamela Ann Rymer states: “While advocating violence is protected, threatening a person with violence is not.… This is not political hyperbole. They were a true threat.” Maria Vullo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, says the essence of the decision is rejection of threatening speech. Of the “political advocacy” practiced by the defendants, Vullo says, “It’s really terrorism.” Christopher Ferrara, a lawyer for the defendants, says his clients will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. “This is a threat case without any identifiable threat,” he says. “We’re found liable for the format we chose.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 5/17/2002] In spite of the verdict, the practice will continue (see January - April 2003, Fall 2009, and September 13, 2010). Entity Tags: Christopher Ferrara, Maria Vullo, Pamela Ann Rymer, “The Nuremberg Files” Timeline Tags: US Health Care

There is a really a vast amount of information on Ferrara's writings and career. This really isn't a question of notability as such, but rather controversy. Circa Corleone (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the problem with those sources is that they don't offer coverage of the subject (which is what is required), they offer coverage of other things by the subject. His commentary about the Church tells us nothing about him and provides nothing of biographical value that we could use in an article about him. He may well be considered an expert on traditional Catholicism and his views might even be cited in articles on Wikipedia where that view is considered relevant. But those things don't make him notable. Stalwart111 04:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am really struggling to understand this concept of notable: he's written six books, favorably reviewed by prominent public figures, he is considered prominent enough to be consulted by BBC, NBC, AP, and is listed on Wikipedia itself as one of only five prominent Catholic traditionalists in the United States. How is he not notable?
I have a legitimate question:
You write: ""Unfair criticism" can contribute to notability but the "unfair" part would need to be verified in independent sources." I am not aware of any independent sources that verify the unfairness of criticism of ANY controversial public figure. This is always a matter of endless back and forth in the public forum, is it not? There is no final verdict, but only notable controversy about notable figures. Am I missing something? I am not trying to be a wise acre, but I really don't see how this person could be considered anything but notable. Wikipedia itself says in the article on traditional Catholics that he is one of he notable ones. Perhaps the problem is the skimpiness of the article? Circa Corleone (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is a lack of independent sources that give us enough biographical information to substantiate a well-sourced article about the subject. Again, his commentary and expert opinion tell us nothing about him - not where he went to school or how he came to form his views or his relationships with other prominent commentators. Occasionally they include a line about which organisation he is affiliated with. And this is often the case with "experts" and prominent media figures. We see them in print media and on TV but we know very little about them. What we do know about them is usually published by them and is considered, for our purposes here, a primary source which we can only use in limited ways and isn't usually considered for the purposes of substantiating notability. What we need is significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I think we have that (and you could start by adding those to the article). The most valuable thing you can do now is to add your "vote" on the basis of your commentary thus far and then work on improving the article if it is kept. Stalwart111 05:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That seems reasonable. Frankly, the article as written is very skimpy. There is so much more that could be said, including published interviews along the lines of what you describe. As to voting, I assume this commentary is the vote? There is not some other way I should indicate it? Circa Corleone (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like this... (Stalwart111 05:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - based on commentary and sources above. A few more of the innumerable examples of coverage of Ferrara: interview by Distributist review: [31] Interview by Life Site News, one of the world's most accessed web sites: [32] He's really all over the place. Thanks.Circa Corleone (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - Nothing presented thus far is of any value towards establishing notability. Primary sources, fringe publications (lifesitenews? Please...), and the like. Reviews of the book do not confer necessarily confer notability on the author. There is nothing here that isn't part of a neo-catholic agenda advanced by single-purpose accounts. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This whole thread was started by "tarc," who seems to think his epithet "fringe publications" and his snide remarks and insults ("Life Site News, please!"---as if that proves something) are grounds for deletion of a longstanding bio entry that needs only beefing up. He reveals his bias, and his lack of subject matter expertise, by referring to a "neo-Catholic agenda." Ferrara and the publications for which he writes are, in fact, opposed precisely to the neo-Catholic agenda in the Church because they are traditionalist publications. Wikipedia itself includes Ferrara in its "List of Notable Catholic Traditionalists". How does a notable traditionalist suddenly become not notable after all these years? "Tarc" offers no reasoning, but only his hostility to the entry and to traditionalists in general. His reliance on the Southern Poverty Law Center, credibility has hit rock bottom even in the mainstream press (see Alexander Cockburn expose, cited above) further reveals his bias.Circa Corleone (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I have offered, from the very beginning, is proof that this person does not meet the threshold for notability as defined in this project. Small publications and religious texts do not meet our standards for reliable sourcing. The amount of time that an article has existed is irrelevant, and being renowned within a small, specialized religious movement doesn't mean that the rest of the world has taken notice...because quite obviously they have not. Stalwart111 is a bit overly-optimistic that blood can be squeezed from a stone here, that a bunch of tiny, disparate mentions about other things and activities that this person has done or said can add up to notability. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I don't think I've been particular optimistic, let alone "overly-optimistic". My keep opinion was prefaced by "weak" for a reason. I think sources like this (from an arguably reliable source notable enough to have his own article here) are substantive enough to make some argument that the subject is notable. Even more so when you consider those two wrote a book together and have since had a falling out, giving credence to the suggestion that Woods' view of the subject is far more "independent" than it might have previously been. The book they wrote and his other books since have been fairly well referenced and reviewed though obviously those with an interest in the subjects he writes about have more enthusiastically reviewed his work than others. But there are other reviews like this that are fairly neutral in their assessment of the subject and his work. I'm still not entirely convinced (and have actually argued against some of the stronger keep opinions as you can see) but I think he (just) falls this side of the WP:N divide. Stalwart111 02:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tarc, you haven't offered any proof, but only tendentious characterizations of the author of six books, widely reviewed by independent publications, characterizing him as a "fringe" figure with "fringe publishers." You are not the arbiter of what constitutes "fringe" literature. Further, Wikipedia is supposed to be a democratic forum for diverse views, not a place where someone with an obvious axe to gride can cite the ridiculous Southern Poverty Law Center and demand deletion of established author whose latest book has been praised by leading academics from Oxford and the University of Notthingham. Your sneering tone ("LifeSite news, please!") is not consistent with good faith criticism.Circa Corleone (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there is not requirement that the whole world take notice of a notable figure, but only his intellectual community or specialty. At any rate, NBC, AP, BBC and the NY TImes have quoted Ferrara. That's called "the rest of the world." Why are you so determined to trash this entry? What does it matter to you?Circa Corleone (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim that there is no coverage of Ferrara as a lawyer, that is simply false. Here is one example among many: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/14/judge-rules-for-pro-life-girls-shackled-strip-searched/ Search "Christopher Ferrara" name and "Nuremberg Files" and you will find coverage all over the world, as you will when you search "Christopher Ferrara and Schiavo." You clearly think little of the man, but he gets around and his notability cannot seriously be questioned even if he is not "world famous" and espouses views you and the Southern Poverty Law Center do not like.Circa Corleone (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Books published by fringe hate groups do not count towards notability, and yes, there most certainly is a requirement that "the whole world take notice"; that is how we determine notability around here. That you do not understand this is unfortunate, and ultimately wasting everyone's time by arguing points that do not matter. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. Ferrara is obviously a notable figure as shown by the extensive material cited above, but I would like to add the following comment in favor of retaining the entry which was offered by Jeffrey Rubin, who has authorized its publication in his name. Mr. Rubin, among other things, is the former Editor of the Conservative Book Club and a graduate of Harvard University. As an aside, I would like to mention I have also been a past donor to Wikipedia.
Mr. Rubin's quote follows:
"I have read three of Christopher Ferrara's books -- one of them co-authored with Tom Woods, ironically -- and am a regular reader of his Remnant articles. As a former editor of the Conservative Book Club, and the founding editor of The Latin Mass magazine, I can say with some authority that Mr. Ferrara is one of, perhaps even THE, best Catholic writers of our time. His perspective on all the most important issues of concern to Catholics, especially the importance of tradition, is indispensable to intelligent conversation on these topics. To credit the Southern Poverty Law Center, or anyone else of its ilk, with having something valuable to say is absurd -- most if not all of them would brand any orthodox or traditional Catholic as being a 'hater' if they thought they could get away with it without seeming to be bigots themselves. Which they are. It would be a disgrace to Wikipedia, which I consult regularly and have donated to, to take down this page." Jeffrey Rubin 96.57.139.91 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
96.57.139.91 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to this AFD. TJRC (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever this Rubin is, they cite personal opinion as reasons to retain the article rather than any Wikipedia policy of guideline. This is why the project weighs the opinions of outside interests next-to-nothing. Fan clubs don't get votes. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since "tarc" has tipped his hand by the phrase "fringe hate groups," revealing his political bias and enmity toward traditional Catholics and their publications, this discussion, which is based entirely on his insulting characterizations, should be terminated and the entry kept. No, it is not necessary that notable personage be noted as such by the entire world. Here are the guidelines as applied to Ferrara:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]
This has been shown in spades: six published books, book reviews numerous venues, news coverage of his major cases, major media interviews with him as an expert, and thousands of published articles.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]
"Tarc" cannot deny that Ferrara is a notable contributor to the literature and public discourse of Catholic traditionalism, his specific field, including thousands of articles and six books which are obviously part of the historical record, and that Wikipedia lists him as one of America's notable traditional Catholics. Nor can he deny that Mr. Ferrara's involvement in the landmark legal cases cited above establishes his contribution to the historical record of First Amendment and civil rights lawsuits. In addition, West Law reveals numerous reported cases in which Ferrara was legal counsel.
Tarc's "case" is revealed by the phrase "fringe hate groups," which he thinks suffices to disqualify any consideration of the sources of Ferrara's notoriety. They're all fringe hate groups, you see. Name-calling is not an intelligent argument against the notability of a subject, who, in this case, is clearly notable enough to incur "tarc's" furious opposition.Circa Corleone (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since my radio show was listed in this discussion as a possible source/reason for the "delete" motion I must respond. Mr Ferrara has been interviewed 3 times on the show since January, 2014. His interviews generated the kind of phone cal, email and comment traffic one expects from well spoken advocates for a controversial point of view. Perhaps the controversy here is that one of the West's leading lay persons, writing on the future from a Catholic perspective, is targeted AFTER his work begins gaining significant traction. Christopher's listing is earned and needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamkingdude (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC) — Iamkingdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - This discussion appears to have caught the attention of an external site or discussion board, as the single-purpose accounts are beginning to pile up. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting process. Tarc gets to hurl the invective "fringe hate groups," use of which violates Wiki courtesy guidelines, and then dismiss all objections as "single-user accounts" and put up a self-serving tag saying this is not a democracy. Also interesting is the use of the term "reliable sources," which appears to exclude all sources that do not share the commenters point of view: you know, the "fringe hate groups" denounced by the other "neutral" commenter. I think we have here a clear case of the liberal bias Wales admits still exists in Wikipedia operations.Circa Corleone (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review Reliable Sources at your leisure. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed them, and they do not allow you to dismiss The Remnant, Latin Mass Magazine, Catholic Family News, New Oxford Review, Distributist Review, Crisis Magazine, and other such sources as "fringe hate groups" because they have point of view. "Reliable sources" does not mean sources that have no point of view. How do you get away with "fringe hate groups" as an en bloc characterization of every source that has covered Ferrara if Wiki is is supposed to be neutral yet tolerant of differing points of view?Circa Corleone (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an attorney who has known Chris Ferrara for close to 20 years. He is a Catholic attorney who zealously fights for the rights of Catholics, without regard to ability to pay. His religious and political writings are informed by a profound understanding of Catholicism and American history and politics. I have seen him demonstrate nothing but kindness, charity and goodwill to all persons regardless of their background. James Bendell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbendell (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jbendell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just because a person has written a book or two, and is a lawyer, and has good reviews of said book, does not mean they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Also see WP:NOTTRUTH for supplementary reading. Tutelary (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
You mean (1) six books with numerous good reviews by independent reviewers and publications, including by two-world renowned scholars who have never met Ferrara, (2) thousands of articles published in at least a dozen different well-established Catholic publications, from New Oxford Review, to Crisis, to Latin Mass magazine, (3) his own internet column with 675 entries, hosted by an independent organization; (4) interviews as a Catholic expert by BBC, AP, NBC, ABC, (5) three appearances on the longest-running conservative talk show on Sirius Radio in just the last three months, (6) at least two landmark legal cases that have received worldwide coverage (Schiavo and the Nuremberg files case), (7) a personal invitation from Peter Thiel to attend last year's Villefranche conference to present his traditional Catholic views, (8) head of an organization that litigates news-reported cases all over the country, (9) lead columnist for a traditional Catholic newspaper which has its own notable entry in Wikipedia (The Remnant), has been in existence for more than forty years, and whose views are read quoted on the Web and Catholic sites all over the world, (10) a traditional Catholic prominent enough to be listed by Wikipedia itself as a "notable Catholic traditionalist" in America (one of only four or five names) for many years? (The traditionalist movement embracing at least a million people worldwide).
You mean that unknown fella? Unbelievable. This game is rigged. I am bowing out. How do I cancel my account and escape from this insanity? What a monumental waste of time. The whole "neutrality" pose at Wikipedia is a charade hiding liberal prejudices.
I will conclude on this note, directed at the one who started this deletion campaign and refuses to let it go. From Wiki standards: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. "Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."
The editor who initiated the demand for deletion of this bio is clearly not interested in cooperating to build a better article, nor in consensus about how to do that. He (along with his allies) is interested in ignoring or minimizing all evidence of notability, smearing the subject and his venues as "fringe hate groups"—a direct violation of Wiki's prohibition of ad hominem attacks and name-calling—and thus having the subject declared a Wiki non-person. That is not cooperation in building a better article. That is an agenda driven by dislike of traditional Catholic personages and publications the author rashly equates with hate groups, in a complete departure from the sober, academic, "neutral" approach that is supposed to characterize this project, but clearly does not in far too many cases, including this one. Circa Corleone (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That you keep impugning my motivations and fundamentally misunderstanding what we're doing here only reflects badly on you, I'm afraid. There is not a "demand" for the article's deletion; it is a discussion. A nominator finds fault with an article, and since we do not decide things by fiat here, it is proposed for deletion. Think of it like an exercise in forensics, where the sides are judged not on the number of arguments but on the quality thereof. The Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor do you have the right (i.e. freedom of speech and whatnot) to be here, or to have an article here. There are rules and guidelines to adhere to, and if you can not formulate an argument that cites such rules and guidelines, you will be just as ignored as someone who yells "You're wrong and you suck!" in a formal debate. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. So when you hurl the phrase "fringe hate groups" that does NOT mean "you suck," is not an ad hominem attack, and is not name-calling. Right. I will let the administrator decide this. Further debate is pointless.Circa Corleone (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it is the truth, as The Remnant is an anti-semitic organization. We most certainly do not use racist publications to assert notability in this project. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another violation of Wiki guidelines: You cite the opinion of a far-Left organization as "the truth" without recognizing that SPLC has been criticized in the mainstream press (see Cockburn expose noted above, among many others) as an unreliable source. That is, you use a patently unreliable source, a source widely ridiculed for its reckless accusations against good people and organizations, to question the reliability of another source. Further, you spoke in the plural: "fringe hate groups." Now you are down to one fringe hate group. But Ferrara's work has been published and praised in numerous sources, many cited above.
You can have the last word in your filibuster. I will not be posting again. Thank you.Circa Corleone (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Praise for an anti-Semite itself becomes suspect, yes. Your departure from this affair is most appreciated. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Between the sources identified by Stalwart111 and the interviews/coverage by fairly biased sources, we've easily met WP:N. The hard part is going to be WP:NPOV. But our inclusion guidelines are met. Hobit (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: I agree with Hobit that notability has been duly established. When major media outlets contact Ferrara in an unsolicited manner for his comments on major developments in the Catholic Church and the Pro-Life Movement -- such as the election of Pope Francis, the legacy of Vatican II and the Nuremberg Files Case -- it would be incongruous for Wikipedia to deny Ferrara's notability as a spokesperson representing the conservative Catholic position.
Ferrara's visibility would need to be considerable for these networks 1) to even know he exists and 2) to be sufficiently aware of the tenets of his position because it has already been clearly and visibly articulated in established sources (for example, the BBC Radio Panel Discussion noted above), and 3) to go a step further and contact him for a statement they deem would be representative of the Traditional Catholic perspective.
As to the question of the neutrality guidelines in WP:NPOV, there doesn't appear to be anything in Ferrara's Wikipedia entry that lacks neutrality. The entry doesn't present anything beyond simple facts concerning his background and is devoid of any bias.
WP:NPOV indicates the following:
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.
Therefore, considering the question of neutrality, there doesn't appear to be anything objectionable in that regard in Ferrara's Wikipedia article.
If anyone is going to build on the existing article, further evidence of notability can be found in these places:
  • A World Net Daily news bulletin announcing Ferrara’s intervention in the Schiavo case: http://www.wnd.com/2003/09/20594/
As regards this last item, there are hundreds of reports on the Web about this case, as well as the Theresa Schiavo case.
As to the charge of “anti-Semitism,” one can cite to the contrary an article written by Ferrara, cited in numerous places on the Internet, denouncing Holocaust revisionism and rebuking Bishop Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X for denying that Hitler killed six million Jews, and showing the evidence for the six million number at the Nuremberg trials: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0131-ferrara-triumph_and_tribulation.htm
It would seem to me that any revisions to the article, which I believe should be retained since it meets the necessary criteria, should take note of Ferrara’s strong denunciation of Holocaust revisionism.
As a somewhat inverse indication of notability: one of the contributors here cites Southern Poverty Law Center against Ferrara, but the SPLC itself regards him as one of the main leaders of the Traditionalist movement after its “three-year investigation,” identifying him as the author of one of its main treatises (The Great Façade) and one of its key figures: “A few, such as the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's family, Christopher Ferrara, are even movers and shakers in important right-wing Republican circles.” http://legacysplc.wwwsplcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=719
It would seem contradictory to cite SPLC against Ferrara as evidence of his non-notability, when SPLC bases their attack on Ferrara expressly on his notable leadership role, calling him one of “the new Crusaders.”
If Traditional Catholicism is notable, and has its own entry here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic, then it can be inferred that Ferrara would consequently be considered notable as well, as one of Traditional Catholicism's leaders.
In fact, Wiki cites Ferrara as a notable Traditional Catholic elsewhere in the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Traditionalist_Catholics
If there is an American Traditionalist Catholic more notable than Ferrara, I would not know who that would be.
We are dealing with a figure of considerable public controversy, who has defenders and attackers, and who has himself gone on the attack against extremists in his own movement, as we see with his denunciation of Holocaust revisionism.
Fairness to the subject may well produce both positive and negative information. Let the reader decide. As for notability: that is clearly beyond question. And as to neutrality, there is nothing in his current Wikipedia article beyond a simple statement of facts. Vinceveritas (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — Vinceveritas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
COMMENT: Tarc, I object to your all too evident personal animus toward the subject in complete disregard for the obvious and numerous facts of record, and your characterizations of objectors as being single purpose editors.
I have been a Traditionalist Catholic since the dawn of this movement nearly 40 years ago. I have seen an entire generation of traditional Catholic apologists come and go; brilliant men whose grasp of the issues at hand provided insights and guidance for many Catholics during decades of upheaval and disorientation in the wake of Vatican II.
I am amply qualified to weigh the importance and notability of Ferrara's contribution during this period of the Catholic Church's history. No matter where I go -- whether it be in the U.S. or Canada, or even in Europe -- I encounter Traditional Catholics (priests and lay persons alike) who not only are amply familiar with Ferrara's literary works and his influence in the current trends of traditional Catholic thought, but also who feel profoundly indebted to him for his ability to convey a better understanding of the doctrinal and pastoral crisis now present in the Catholic Church. He is without a doubt considered not only as an authority, but as an author to whom one can look for a sound grasp of current events in the Catholic Church.
I am also a donor to Wikipedia and use it almost daily as a reference tool on countless topics. The fact that I have decided to contribute only now in this particular instance is 1) there is no other topic on which I feel so amply qualified to weigh in and 2) I cannot bear an injustice -- which is precisely what is attempted here in trying to discount Ferrara as a "non-notable". You are most certainly mistaken. The facts of record are self-evident. Vinceveritas (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/weak !vote. The article is dreadful in terms of BLP requirements, almost exclusively reliant on primary and non-independent sources, and failing NPOV. On the other hand, Stalwart and Hobit make a good case that the subject passes the GNG. I don't think anybody reasonably challenges Tarc's position that the article, in its current form, should not be retained. Therefore, keep and stub with an eye to expansion based on independent sourcing to establish notability, rather than from partisan sources on both sides of the debates he is involved in. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm convinced after trawling through the sewer above this comment that Ferrara meets the WP:GNG, but obviously given the controversial nature of his beliefs, the article needs to be closely watched to make sure that the provisions of the WP:BLP policy are adhered to. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:17, 19 April 2014 (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. Consensus seems to be that this middle school is not notable, but that it could be mentioned in a (to-be-created) article on the CHIME Institute. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CHIME Charter Middle School[edit]

CHIME Charter Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG SarahStierch (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep pending time to properly source-hunt. This smells notable to me. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The middle school is not notable and has only existed since 2003. But its parent, the CHIME Institute, might be notable if the history given at the article is accurate. Searching mostly turns up a K-12 (?) entity called the CHIME Institute's Schwarzenegger Community.[33] I could find no indication what its history is, or what its connection is with the middle school or the Institute. If we can't find more information and get a properly sourced and accurate article, this should be Deleted. I am open to changing my mind if someone can come up with a better article and a proposed rename. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Parsing the Google, my sense is that the middle school is not notable but the institute behind it probably is. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The article title does not seem to be a plausible redirect and a merger to British Council does not seem to be very feasible, given the current structure of that article. In the absence of any convincing evidence that this branch is separately notable, I close as delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Council (Jordan)[edit]

British Council (Jordan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May fail WP:ORG SarahStierch (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Hi - How is it "tentative"? Perhaps I should rephrase my nomination - I failed to find any reliable secondary sources that establish it's notability generally or as an organization. And it's been sitting tagged with concerns since 2008. So not too tentative :) ) SarahStierch (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination was created at 01:31. At 01:28, you were creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRINT Institute - another drive-by nomination of an unrelated organisation. At 01:33, you moved on to the unrelated topic of Guillermo Cabanellas. You seem to have spent about two minutes on the matter and that doesn't seem enough time to do the due diligence of WP:BEFORE. When I look for sources, there seem to be numerous references indicating that this organisation is active in sponsoring a variety of cultural activities and that it is one of "Amman's top two language schools". There's an obvious alternative to deletion in that this is the regional office of a global organisation and so merger up a level would be a sensible alternative. What we seem to have here is a rote nomination of a topic because it has had a tag for some time. But AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am not seeing anything regarding the organisation itself which is not better at the (unlinked) British Council article. An article on an organisation branch is justifiable only if it is of demonstrable individual notability. What we have here is some material about the part of the host city in which it is situated and some text on the edge of incoherent in the Strategy section, none of it referenced (and hence not appropriate for an upmerge). AllyD (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the article content is referenced now. Andrew (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2014 (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) 13:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of public procurement websites[edit]

List of public procurement websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has WP:LINKFARM problems. There is some discussion about this on the talk page. A PROD with this reason was previously declined. I myself am uncertain: it looks like a valid spin-off of the external links section of Government procurement, but a list of external links of this size appears excessive; we are not a weblink directory. This probably merits community discussion.  Sandstein  16:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandstein for helping to foster the community discussion about this page. I thought I'd move my explanations from the article's talk page to this one, since the discussion will likely happen here. Here are the reasons for the creation of the page that might support its preservation.
  • The Wikipedia content about procurement data is likely to grow. The role of procurement data is changing, as it moves online and becomes open. From an obscure source of boring reports, it is becoming a major tool for government accountability and detection of fraud and corruption.
  • There are links to Wikipedia articles. As the profile of the data and agencies grows, their articles as likely to appear and the problem of the external links will lessen.
  • There are many lists of websites on Wikipedia. Like this one, some have a majority of external links in the mix.
  • There's already a partial list under the government procurement page, as Fayenatic London observed.
  • Perhaps there are ways to improve the article instead of deleting it? It is brand new. It would be nice to let the page live a little to see if the community comes to improve it. I've done what I could to get it started, but I was hoping that the community could make the page better over time.
I hope this clarifies where the idea and effort come from and I look forward to hearing from others interested in the fate of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozza (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:09, 10 April 2014 (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 Adolfo Camarillo High School. Any content worth merging to Adolfo Camarillo High School is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camarillo Classic[edit]

Camarillo Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May fail our general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Adolfo Camarillo High School which hosts it. I have already merged a couple of sentences to that article. One caveat: the website for this track meet does not appear to have been updated since 2012, so I'm not sure if the event still exists. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:08, 10 April 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umang[edit]

Umang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unverified, and I cannot find reliable sources that verify that this is of encyclopedic value. In addition, the article is irredeemably promotional. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find evidence of notability, yes, "irredeemably promotional", the official website (which I'm removing) hosts malware. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I have taken some time reading through this discussion, the article, and the linked sources. The article seems to be mainly OR and lacks in sources that directly address this subject as a coherent proposal. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Party and Representative Voting[edit]

Direct Party and Representative Voting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Original research. Advocacy. Markus Schulze 18:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Yes, the article could use better writing, and may contain some original research and/or advocacy. But the subject of the article is notable, having gained traction in Canada, and the article does cite sources. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't vote here because I don't think I am allowed to (as I am the one who started the article). But, I will work on cleaning it up very soon. I am very open to getting rid of all of the Original research and/or Advocacy that is found in the article. Please help me figure out exactly which part should be deleted and I will do so. If you wish, you can tell me on the Talk page for the article at this link. Or if you wish you can tell me here. Thanks for your input.Boyd Reimer (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to! I think what the nominator is trying to say is that the article needs to describe its subject in an encyclopedic (i.e. neutral) manner, and needs to cite sources (inline if possible) to support claims. But I personally think the subject, with a little prodding, could very well make a valid article. ChromaNebula (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of course, also the creator of an article is allowed to vote in a deletion discussion. Markus Schulze 08:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you all for your patience. I will improve the article soon - Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your input. Two heads are better than one. Below is just a preliminary response. I will add more supporting links soon, when I have more time. I will also improve the article with more links. I have already added more evidence of the public discussion of DPR voting in the Talk page of the new article at this link: Talk:Direct_Party_and_Representative_Voting
First question: Is the article against Wikipedia’s policy on “Advocacy?” I will answer that question in two parts.
Part A. Is the article advocating for one political party over another?
The public consultation, in which DPR voting was mentioned, was co-hosted by the NDP and the Toronto chapter of a non-partisan organization called Fair Vote Canada. The people attending were given a survey which contained a question on DPR voting (also called “PPV”). The survey was “real-time” and was filled out by the audience during the lecture, with pauses from the lecturer, Craig Scott. If the DPR voting system were in place in Canada, the NDP party would lose seats, not gain them. This is explained in the 8 min video - which is posted in the Wikipedia article.
Proportional Representation – of several types - is supported by leading figures from 3 parties in Canada, as the Fair Vote Canada website shows. Among them are the current leader of the NDP Party, Thomas Mulcair, two former leaders of the Liberal Party, Stéphane Dion, and Bob Rae, 2013 Liberal leadership candidate (won second place) Joyce Murray (won second place), Green Party leader Elizabeth May.See this link to a CBC News media story Also see this video with 3 parties speaking Both of these two links happened on the same day (morning of) the Sep 19, 2013 event in which Craig Scott mentioned DPR voting in a public consultation in Toronto.
Part B. Is the article advocating for one voting system over another?
The article explains how the system works, like any encyclopedia should. Perhaps the wording, in some places, is too much like advocating for that system, and I will change it.
Second question: Is the article Original Research?:
See below edit of March 27 ( I am revising and editing my own comment, if that's okay with everyone.)
Thank you all for your input. Two heads are better than one. Above was just a preliminary response. I will add more supporting links soon, when I have more time. I will also improve the article with more links. Sincerely Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an edit to my own comment addressing the issue of “Original Research": (In the last few days I have improved the article which may now make it more acceptable.) In 2010, Stephen Johnson is the inventor, and primary source.
Then there are at least two secondary sources: 1. In 2011, the blog - “On Procedure and Politics.” 2. In 2013, a public speech by Craig Scott (who taught law). Admittedly, the 2011 example is more verifiable than the 2013 one. Nevertheless, I have provided a photo of the copy of the survey which Craig Scott used in his public speech. ...More improvements are coming... - Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't take this proposal seriously. I even doubt that those people, who promote this proposal, take this proposal seriously.
I have made the observation that, shortly after an election, people propose all kinds of ad hoc methods (i.e. methods without any historic or theoretic justification) to discredit the winner of these elections; saying: "Candidate A won the elections. But we only have to modify the used election method this little bit, and some other candidate would have won." In my opinion, Wikipedia should concentrate on serious proposals. Wikipedia should not harbour articles on nonserious proposals that have been made only for tendentious reasons.
The only point of this article is to say that the election result would have been different if proportional representation had been used (instead of single-member districts). But this point is trivial.
There is not a single hit in Google Books. There is not a single hit in Google Scholar.
All references are non-notable or dubious (in so far as it is unclear whether they are really about Direct Party and Representative Voting).
All the mentioned supporters are non-notable. Markus Schulze 09:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Just now I made a crucial edit and added another crucial reference in which Craig Scott (politician) is referring to “proportional parliamentary voting.”
This time I have a reference which is both from a notable person, and also verifiable (linkable online) at the same time. It also directly refers to “proportional parliamentary voting.” (You can see it for yourself.) This responds solidly to the original criticism of Original research.
If you want I can change the name of the article to “proportional parliamentary voting.”
But Wikipedia has rules about how to name an article when there could be two names to that article. That is a separate debate apart from deleting the article altogether.
This reference shows Craig Scott (a lawyer among other things) encountering another opinion from another lawyer, Wilf Day. This exchange between these two lawyers is healthy because they are critiquing each other. Craig Scott makes a comment that “proportional parliamentary voting” would be difficult to implement in Canada without a change in the constitution. But nevertheless, he maintains that the main tool of “proportional parliamentary voting,” which is “weighting” still retains value and could still be useful in other ways in the Canadian political system – even without constitutional change.
Wikipedia is not only a place for things that are used in practice. Wikipedia also is a place for things that are theories. See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Voting_systems
At this link…: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Voting_systems
…This is the first sentence: "This category is for different theoretical models. See also electoral systems category for details of actual current or historical implementations." (end quote)
According to Wikipedia rules, the criteria for an article is not that a voting system be used. Instead, the criteria are that the references be verifiable and by a notable person. This last reference is both verifiable (linkable) and contains a quote from a notable person in which the phrase “proportional parliamentary voting” is used.
More improvements are coming to address further the criticism of "advocacy". Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just now I updated Direct Party and Representative Voting again. Boyd Reimer (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is not a single hit in Google Scholar for "Direct Party and Representative Voting". There is not a single hit in Google Books for "Direct Party and Representative Voting". Markus Schulze 18:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 04:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I am getting nothing on this except what looks like someone going around to every possible blog out there and dropping comments that say "all our problems would be solved if we went to this new system." Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs to be re-written to be more encyclopedic, but the subject appears to be a serious proposal with legitimate secondary coverage. I was prepared to vote for deletion until I saw the CBC article. Orser67 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The most important reference is not the reference from CBC. Instead, it is reference # 4 in the article. To go to that reference click here , then scroll down to the comments from Craig Scott (politician), then press "Read more" to see his entire comment.
This link is not just an ordinary blog. Instead, it's an "online citizen-engagement platform, [in which] NDP Democratic Reform Critic Craig Scott seeks to engage the residents of Toronto-Danforth and people across Canada in issues of national and local importance." (This quoted description is from Craig Scott himself.)
This entire platform is created by the notable person, Craig Scott (politician). You can see that he created this site by looking at the website address. Then he comments in his own platform.
In his comment on his own platform, Craig Scott, a notable person, is directly referring to "Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting)," or, as he calls it in his comment, "Proportional Parliamentary Voting." The topic of discussion is the DPR website. Verify that by doing the following: 1. At the top of the conversation thread, click on "View More Comments" 2. Under "Boyd R." click on "Read More." That previous comment is clearly about the "Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting)" because it links to the DPR website, and that's virtually all this one sentence comment does.
(Even though I am the "Boyd R." who got involved in that conversation thread with my one sentence two months ago, I couldn't possibly have controlled the comments of Wilf D. and Craig Scott. They are both lawyers, and, as you can see, are very independent thinkers. Frankly, I've never met Wilf D., and I've only met MP Craig Scott twice very briefly at public events where he was consulting with the broader public. I'm not in his riding, and I'm not his constituent, so he's not appeasing my vote. I was at his Sep 19, 2013 public event. That's where I first learned of DPR voting .... from MP Craig Scott.)
Consider these key questions:
Is there any dispute that Craig Scott is notable?
Is there any dispute that he is directly and publicly discussing "Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting)," or, as he calls it in his comment, "Proportional Parliamentary Voting?"
Is there any dispute that Scott's public discussion is verifiable - not only to you, but to all Wikipedia readers?
Is there any dispute that Scott's discussion is a secondary source? (Primary source is the DPR site authored by Stephen Johnson.)
I am confident that your answers to all of these questions will be no. If so, then your answers (not mine) will remove Original Research as a grounds for the deletion of this article. - Sincerely - Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC); Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:03, 10 April 2014 (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 Chess_variant. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chess on the Dot[edit]

Chess on the Dot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obviously a worthwhile enterprise creating (yet) another chess variant, but there is no indication of notability. It is listed on chess variant, but this could equally be an external link. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This appears to be a new name for spherical chess, which is known from fairy chess problems (Dickins's A Guide to Fairy Chess addresses it, and chessvariants.org dates its creation to 1965[34]). I am not, however, convinced that it is notable under this name. If kept, I suggest a move to spherical chess and a rewrite to reflect the more general topic. — Gwalla | Talk 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really hard to work this stuff out, but I do not think it is the same as spherical chess, at least as listed at http://www.chessvariants.org/boardrules.dir/spherical.html Basically, there is no neat and obvious way to map a square grid into a sphere (unlike a torus or projective plane), and therefore there is more than one way to make moves go over the "poles". If I have understood the diagrams correctly, here is how a bishop moves:
a7 b8 g8 h7 (spherical chess)
a7 b8 f8 e7 (chess on the dot)
So this is different. The pieces emerge from the pole moving in orthogonal directions, so completely different. It seems to me that the author has not provided any compelling reason for his particular scheme being more natural than anyone else's, and therefore for Wikipedia there really needs to be some notability established. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've worked it out. And the B's move is a handy way to distinguish between rulesets. Imaginatorium is correct, in the variant at Chessvariants.com the B changes square color and loops when crossing the pole, the Dot B doesn't change color and then goes in the opposite direction. (But that article seems to be a synthesis of Miller's 1965 version which Pritchard describes in both encyclopedias as the B looping w/o changing color as per Berloquin's rules, and Nadvorney's version [1975] where the B changes colors when it loops.) Based on the B move and/or other stuff, the Dot ruleset is not Grayber's version [1950s; Berloquin's rules], Miller's version, Yaspan's version [1970], Nadvorney's version, Nelson's version [1976], Carelman's version[1971], Boholy's version [1987], or Gramolt's version [1986]. But the B move [and possibly other piece moves too] may be the same as Klaus Schroer's version [game name Global Thinker, 1990, proprietary] -- it has the same B pattern as the Dot B, but I don't know if the polar circle is merely crossed or is a residable cell since don't have access to Schach Magazin 64 where is described further.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Totally irrelevant to the issue at hand but) I suspect it's quite easy - if you're not careful - to discover after you have made up the rules that a bishop threatens every square on the board, making it much more powerful than a rook. I also think it's unlikely you can make a version where a piece can be on a pole, because it would have to be able to move anywhere! Imaginatorium (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's my expectation too (i.e. the poles are merely traversed in Klaus Schroer's version). (The text in both Pritchard encyclopedias isn't 100% explicit, so was just being careful.) In Nelson's version the pole is occupiable and each of Q, R, and B then control all board cells like you figured. Both Boholy's version and Gramolt's version have one of three optional rulesets where the poles are occupiable. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We seem to have another issue here, of COI. The article claims that the game was designed by a Joshua Chao (as well as the physical model and the "digital implementation"); all of the graphics were uploaded by User:mrjoshuachao. Though, surprisingly, he only has one edit of the article itself, changing "transform" to "transmogrify". Looking closer at the article history, it appears to be a recreation of a deleted article (complete with COI and Unreferenced templates!). I checked in the deleted versions and the original was indeed posted and (other than the addition of the problem templates) solely edited by User:mrjoshuachao. It was speedied under WP:G7 after he blanked the page, so is not a WP:G4 candidate. — Gwalla | Talk 05:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 04:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I will defer to Imaginatorium above on whether or not this is the same as the old "spherical chess" variant. At any rate there are extremely few web hits on this, and they give this article a strong promotional color, to the point where I have to suspect that the point is to sell the specific object pictured in the article. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment As far as I can tell there are no RSs for this chess variant either in the article or on the web, that topic Dot as a game. It seems the German award it has won may be regarding its design as an object d'art, and that wouldn't qualify it wiki-wise for inclusion at article Chess variants where it has currently been included. I don't know about the retention of the subject article based on being object d'art if RSs toward that can be provided. And if kept on that basis, I don't see any problem including the inventor's ruleset (as already has been done) in it, but w/o an RS on the game (not the object) it seems to me it's disqualified from being included at Chess variant due to WP:MADEUP. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the (elegantly produced) physical set really should be deleted as "advertising" (or whatever); these rules, though, can surely be mentioned in the list of variants. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The standard at Chess variants is each variant listed is verifiable by an independent RS. (The only RS I'm aware for Dot is from the inventor himself, and he is not a noted variant inventor, so it's a self-reference not an independent source. So that means WP:MADEUPONEDAY. Plus there is the additional possibility that the Dot ruleset is identical to Klaus Schroer's Global Thinker.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion by User:Gwalla to create a Spherical chess generic article is excellent, on par w/ existing articles Hexagonal chess, Three-dimensional chess, Circular chess, Three-player chess, and Four-handed chess. (Although the latter needs much development and is really just a placeholder now. The others need some good development too. There could/should also be a Triangular chess as well.) But even if Spherical chess existed today, "Chess on the Dot" still has no RSs qualifying it for mention. There seem to be possible RS for physical implementation of spherical chess however, so I don't see any reason said photo can't be retained at Chess variants and I've already made provision there to do so (if the photo will be maintained on Commons). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – while this is a very cool concept, it does not appear to be notable (yet, anyway). Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My gestalt view of all the specialized, intelligent conversation above, is that actually it should be kept. The topic is apparently elegant, attractive, challenging (more than i as a mere mortal can understand). --doncram 02:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, I agree with User:Gwalla above, that the article could be moved to Spherical chess and expanded to cover other variations. Chess variants article would be overwhelmed by the useful graphics showing how a bishop moves, etc., that are now in the article; it has minimal coverage of spherical chess in one dot point. Moving to "Spherical chess" would allow anything too promotional to be edited down. However, the current text seems pretty good, describing a logical, mathematical setting. It would be more encyclopedic if alternatives were conveyed. --doncram 20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone has been tidying up the wklinks, but the more I look at this article the more I think it should be deleted. There is a lot of special pleading (and private vocabulary such as "2DFARCSOD"); in fact this "sphere" is no more a sphere than any of the other spherical variants, because of the fundamental fact that there are only three possibilities for a clean "closed" chessboard, which are the torus, Klein bottle, and real projective plane. Any attempt at putting it on a sphere inevitably has "funny things" happening at the poles. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I revised my "Keep" vote above to clarify I now think the article should be moved and expanded (which I think is still a Keep vote) to the topic of Spherical chess. Wouldn't that work for you, Imaginatorium, to have a good discussion of the basics and the variations available for spherical chess? It seems there is goodwill here among several commenters that could be applied to revising this article under the title "Spherical chess", rather than tossing it and its useful graphics and text so far developed. I would just rather help Wikipedia grow, with some re-channeling, rather than discard a good addition. --doncram 20:04, 16 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos Software[edit]

Cosmos Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finding a lot of troublesome articles via backlogged orphan lists. This appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG but perhaps someone knows some sources that I couldn't find that are reliable past some Googling. SarahStierch (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unable to find any source to help this article. No indication of notability. Fails WP:ORG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 01:56, 10 April 2014 (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. There is a clear consensus that the coverage of this organization in reliable sources is sufficient to establish its notability. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sf.citi[edit]

Sf.citi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested A7 speedy, org does appear to have some coverage in local media Tawker (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): It also has coverage by national media. Here is an article from the New York Times discussing sf.citi and its chairman, Ron Conway, entitled "A Silicon Valley Vision for San Francisco": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/us/ron-conway-tech-investor-turns-focus-to-hometown.html?_r=0 Prauls901 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is national and local news coverage. Industry specific lobbying are arguably the most significant players in American politics. It makes sense to cover these sort of large organizations. Its members are not just local businesses; these are the largest companies in the country and the world: Facebook, Google, etc. ZZZ (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)— Azalea666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sf.citi is mentioned as a main subject in two sources in the article and elsewhere eg [35]. It also gets a solid paragraph in another reference. Through the news sites are local they are independent and reliable, and more indicative of notability than some local magazine in a small town. The group is clearly a significant lobby in the local industry and includes notable companies such as Google and Facebook. (I am aware that notability is not inherited per se; however, those being members combined with the news coverage surely indicates a sufficient level of notability.) BethNaught (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion over yet? All comments are positive, it was flagged unnecessarily, and it's obvious it meets notability standards. Prauls901 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient, it will be reviewed by an admin in a couple of days. BethNaught (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2014 (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. per Nymf and Bearcat, deleted article and restored starting at Canuckle's blank/rewrite of entire article. Tawker (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Keith Gray[edit]

Colin Keith Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was requested as a speedy G5 (banned/blocked user) - with that being said subject may be notable and article may be worthy of a keep. Tawker (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It is not of interest if the subject is notable or not. If someone wants to create an article on the subject in question, they need to do so independently of the sockpuppet. Nymf (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of deleting a banned editor's contributions isn't really a question of notability — but rather a question of withholding attribution of authorship from the banned user. And it's worth remembering, as well, that a deletion discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article; an article that's been deleted in the past can be recreated if the notability claim and the existence of valid sourcing change. And in a case such as this, if you believe that the subject is sufficiently notable, you also have the option of copying the text, deleting the page to eliminate the banned user's author credit, and then immediately recreating the page so that you're the new "original" author instead. That said, this article, as currently written, is "referenced" only to a dead link on a site that wouldn't count as a sufficiently reliable source anyway — so his basic notability hasn't actually been properly demonstrated in the first place. Delete; no prejudice against recreation by somebody else if some actual sourcing can be added. Due to Canuckle's improvements, keep the article, but delete the banned editor's edits from its history. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep recreated version with actual sourcing. I have no linkage to this subject topic or creator Canuckle (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is much better, and I'm willing to withdraw the part of my above comment that pertains to the lack of sourcing. However, we still have the problem of original authorship being attributed to a banned user. Is there a way we can resolve that issue without crapping on Canuckle's fine salvage work? Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is possible to completely blank the edit history prior to Canuckle's edit (just like they do with vandals sometimes). Nymf (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 01:54, 10 April 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morocho[edit]

Morocho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, a pretty basic dicdef with varying meanings and doesn't seem all that common according to the ghits. tutterMouse (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Excelent article, it does explains the diferent meaning of this word, read http://dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/morocho[reply]

I guess they put as "Brunette"

http://dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/morocho

http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/7574/what-does-morocha-mean

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-does-morocho-mean-from-spanish-to-english Show some love for Hispanic culture people, wikipedia means to be inclusive, also, I always contribute with the money funds drive. GL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.46.183 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Black hair. In any case, it's just a set of word definitions, more suitable for wikcionary Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 01:52, 10 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puthir[edit]

Puthir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Prod declined without comment. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we see the same phenomenon almost everyday, with Indian (particularily South Indian) movie productions being routinely discarded as non-notable. There are several notable figures involved in the making of the movie, seem notable enough. --Soman (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that this article has been improved in several respects, I am changing to say keep this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2014 (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) 05:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LSU Mixon Lyceum Speech & Debate Team[edit]

LSU Mixon Lyceum Speech & Debate Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally tagged this page with a hope that further work could create a well-cited page. That has not happened; almost everything her is sourced by primary sources and there are definitely not enough sources to assert notability for this student group. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2014 (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) Valoem talk contrib 20:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereum[edit]

Ethereum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a non-notable platform for a non-notable altcoin without it's article. Citing my usual WP:GNG, WP:PROMO argument as I've made with many of these other coins. Citation Needed | Talk 00:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ethereum is not just another alt-coin, but an important attempt to create a new platform. It is notable, as evidenced by the citations and attention throughout the cryptocurency community, and if you'll read the article, you'll see that articles critical of Ethereum are included as well, so it's hard to argue WP:PROMO. Sanpitch (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any of the articles I see that come from reliable sources, only one makes more than a mention. The rest are questionable and can be considered unreliable. Citation Needed | Talk 12:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two wired articles and an Al Jazeera article focused solely on Ethereum. I personally think both are reliable; which do you consider unreliable? The second of two critical articles by Daniel Krawisz has more than a passing mention. I have added references to Coinsummit, and a Harvard presentation which show that the currency is being taken seriously. Sanpitch (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This Wired article contains a single trivial mention of its existence in a single sentence, and is cited only to support the statement that it is mentioned in Wired. The Globe and Mail article, cited for the same reason, includes just three sentences about Ethereum. This other Wired article does include some detailed more coverage. The opening paragraph said Ethereum is "considered by many to be a second generation cryptocurency", while the cited reference didn't mention "generation", "2nd", or "second", and referring to the vague opinion of "many" does seem unduly promotional; I just removed that. Agyle (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Agyle for your good comments and updates to the article. I have made a few other minor updates. I continue to maintain that Ethereum is a good and useful currency. Sanpitch (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some detail about what the source said about the coin would improve the article, specifically what makes it notable and unique.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote. FYI the Yahoo article is a press release from the Ethereum team, the Medium article is by an Ethereum team member, the Forbes article is not Ethereum-specific, and the Al Jazeera article is already cited. Sanpitch (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to point out the same things. :-) I would not consider the first two for notability, and would weigh Forbes more lightly than full articles like Al-Jazeera's. Agyle (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While RS coverage is not plentiful, I think there's enough to meet GNG. The article is currently very weak, but not due to lack of sources. Some information about the topic is vague, because it its initial release is still pending, but RS coverage has been ongoing for several months. Agyle (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_April_10&oldid=1142630092"