Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 April	19 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. A10 of Skiller Jac16888 ^Talk 11:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skiller (Български Beatbox-ър)[edit]

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

Not in English. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 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 keep. There is a consensus that being the mayor of Fargo, ND and having significant coverage in reliable sources establish the notability of this person. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Jon G. Lindgren[edit]

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

Non-notable minor politician. reddogsix

Keep. The article is going to need some work but he was mayor of his state's largest city for 16 years. The usual searches reveal national coverage (such as [1] and [2]) in addition to the expected local coverage. Article needs name change to delete the "Dr". --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, but article does need renaming per WP:CREDENTIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage in s Google News Archive search. Some of the hits I found are a bit light, but he does seem notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill local mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not merely a local mayor, he is of major significance to LGBT culture, with the national coverage to verify his importance. Xoloz (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see no evidence of this coverage in the article. reddogsix (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we almost always keep mayors of large(est) cities. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See:

Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". ... Politicians who ... have received national or international press coverage, e.g. for acting as a spokesperson on a major political issue or for breaking the law, are also often found to be sufficiently notable."
— Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES.

Bearian (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mayors of major cities are notable. Fargo qualifies. LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk) 21:14, 22 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) 04:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EasyCwmp[edit]

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

I do not see evidence of notability . This has been previous nominated for deletion at AfD when it was in draft space--the deletion discussion for the draft version , which still exists, was moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mkallel/Easycwmp. The only reason it was kept at the earlier AfD was that the wrong process was used. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - confirm I procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Mkallel/Easycwmp when this was a userspace draft to encourage discussion at MFD instead. That discussion was started, as above, but the article was then moved into main-space necessitating this discussion. Despite multiple unsuccessful AFC submissions and what seems to be an attempt to make other editors play whack-a-mole with unsourced promo-spam, the creator has been unwilling to discuss the article at any venue. I questioned the editor who declined the AFC submissions and then nominated the draft for deletion, for which I now apologise. This has zero reliable sources - I can't see any way this would pass WP:GNG. Given the background, suggest we delete the article and salt the title. Stalwart111 23:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any independent reliable sources; there is some discussion of the software in the OpenWrt forums, but this material is not considered reliable. Without independent in-depth RS, this article cannot be verified and thus fails notability per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UnDelete EasyCwmp is new open source and it's a fork of the freecwmp project (as indicated in the EasyCwmp's article). freecwmp is an openwrt package. So this could be a reliable source. in addition, before consider this article not a reliable source, please check theses references :

EasyCwmp web site : http://www.easycwmp.org
firm contributions : http://www.pivasoftware.com
Easycwmp source project : http://www.freecwmp.org
stackoverflow forum tag : http://stackoverflow.com/tags/easycwmp/info

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkallel (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clarification1 why consider this article as not reliable source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anis ell (talk• 09:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand what people here mean when they say "source" (see reliable source). "Open" source and "reliable" source are not the same thing - they aren't even in reference to the same type of thing. We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The company's own websites are not "independent reliable sources". Stalwart111 13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clarification2 the question is not about the means of "Open" source and "reliable" source, but is about the reason of consider this article not a reliable source !!

~~UnDelete~~ @Stalwart111 : how can I avoid the delete of this topic ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.250.29 (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by not using multiple accounts to make it look like this has more support than it does. Mostly you need to demonstrate that this has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That means coverage in newspapers, industry magazines and other reliable sources. Simply posting links to the product's site won't help your cause. And you only get to !vote once. Stalwart111 10:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the multiple accounts issue. But in fact we are only 2 peoples woking on this article "Mkallel" and "Anis ell" (The easycwmp project maintainers). Both we are involved in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkallel (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the reliable sources. Does the definition of the easycwmp in the stackoverflow tags is not sufficient?. And also our project is a fork from the freecwmp project and frrecwmp is already a package in the OpenWRT. I think that could be a reliable source, isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkallel (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. These don't count as reliable sources, as people already tried to explain to you. Max Semenik (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability demonstrated. Good thing !== notable thing. Max Semenik (talk) 01:26, 23 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 delete. WP:A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Hooser[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability threshold for people. The article has no reliable sources and I'm finding little coverage in reliable sources via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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 redirect to List of Sudbury schools. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Sudbury Campus[edit]

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

Fails notability verification per WP:NRV. It was a short-lived private tutoring service. Indigo Sudbury Campus was not classified as a school in Alberta so the article cannot claim the high school notability exemption. The article has been in existence for years, but has had no content additions since it was created, and most of that material was simply copied from a similar article and was not really applicable to this article. There has been no response after 3 or 4 months of requests for input after I pruned the article. What's left is unsourced and unverifiable. Meters (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not a recognized school. A Google turned up very little, and nothing that comes close to ringing the notability bell. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:NRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomen, fails credible claim of significance. (WP:CCOS) Mr. Guye (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sudbury schools. (Redirects are cheap.) I have seven decent hits for this in LexisNexis, a few dedicated to the subject (e.g., Cathy Lord (August 23, 2002), "No tests, no rules, no report cards: New Edmonton school offers private, alternative experience for city students", Edmonton Journal (Alberta): A1). Based on these hits, I'd say it meets the GNG, yet since the sources are behind a paywall (or in old newspapers) and there isn't quite enough to build a fully bodied article, I'm recommending a redirect to the list of Sudbury schools, hopefully to be expanded one day to a "List of Sudbury schools in Canada" (this school was the third such) with some more description. I can't find a source on its 2008 closing and the ghits are quite sparse. czar ♔ 16:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect. It sounds like there are sources, we just don't have easy access to them. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 29 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 delete. as a copyright violation of this page. SmartSE (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear[edit]

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

Borderline WP:A1 without any form of history or back-story. It might belong as a paragraph in another article (if one can be found), but not as a stand-alone article.

As far as I can see, the story behind this article is that certain countries, including Indonesia, alleged that Argentina had violated two international treaties (the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and the Agreement on Safeguards) and asked the World Trade Organisation, which is, IIRC, responsible for upholding GATT and presumably the other treaty to do something about that. It seems to be a request for some kind of abitration. See this. A1 is not applicable. It is obvious this article is about the particular dispute referred to in the sources. The fact that those sources are written in cryptic legalese is not an excuse to delete the article. James500 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE has no application whatsoever to this article. James500 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:N as far as I am able to discern. Cited sources are primary and are not generally used to establish notability. This does indeed appear to be a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What is the claim to encyclopedic notability here? On a side note many of your comments below seem to suggest that it is the nom's responsibility to prove an article should be deleted. Actually that is not the case. Articles must clearly demonstrate notability. The burden of proof lies with the creator and and any other defending editors. WP:IMPERFECT articles can and generally should be kept. But IMPERFECT doesn't apply to notability. That can't be fixed. It's either there or it isn't. Right now I'm not seeing it. I remain open to reconsideration if any WP:RS sources are found that establish encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst lack of notability is a valid argument for deletion, it has nothing to do with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:INDISCRIMINATE prohibits summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, excessive listings of statistics and exhaustive logs of software updates. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is simply not engaged by this article.

Articles do not have to demonstrate notability. If sources exist, they do not need to be present. WP:BEFORE requires the nominator to look for sources and positively confirm that they don't exist. Have you looked for sources using Google? That is an absolute minimum requirement for arguing that a topic is not notable. Apparent failure to comply with WP:BEFORE, evidenced by equivocal statements as to whether it has been complied with, is a valid reason to reject a nomination. James500 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not the nominator, I have indeed done a Google search and I found nothing that rings the notability bell. Again I am open to reconsideration if reliable and verifiable sources are found that establish an argument for encyclopedic notability. As of right now I'm not seeing it. So where is the WP:N? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for argentina import footwear, "argentina footwear" (the short title) and "Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear" in GBooks bring up a substantial number of sources about the case. What is wrong with them? James500 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the first couple pages found that some of the sources are primary and the others appeared to be citations or footnotes in books dealing with much broader topics. In short they appeared to be trivial and lacking the in depth coverage by reliable secondary sources. That said it is possible that citations of legal cases alone might be sufficient to ring the notability bell. I am unsure, as this topic is not explicitly covered in WP:N. But some projects have informal guidelines to notability for project specific topics. As such I have taken the liberty of posting an RfC on the talk page of the WP:LAW project asking for some input. Perhaps they can shed some light on this. In the meantime I will keep my eye on the page for further developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not primary and looks like more than a citation or footnote. I think that the title of the case must at least be a plausible redirect to our article on GATT since it appears to say something about the interpretation of the treaty. James500 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's enough for GNG. But I won't quibble about a redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This, in my opinion, is clearly significant coverage. It has its own section which is much more detailed than many articles in other encyclopedias such as Britanicca. James500 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, missing WP:RS. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The World Trade Organisation is clearly a reliable source. James500 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, no valid rationale for deletion has been offered by the nominator or anyone else, so this will be closed as a keep by default unless someone makes some constructive comments about the notability of the dispute that is the subject of this article. James500 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no context. Without looking at the references I have no idea what it is about. The same goes for the other article by the same author. If someone can rescue it, fine. As is the article makes no sense.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. The references provide context. You have to look at them. James500 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that an article is written in legalese that you would have to be an expert to understand does not make it nonsense. Nonsense, for the purposes of CSD, is something that no one could understand because it is meaningless gibberish like "dhrgkkynmfbjdxndjycgdnikvd" (a word I produced by pressing keys at random). Since the content of the article is taken verbatim from the website of the World Trade Organisation, we can infer that it is not nonsense, even if its meaning is obscure. James500 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A1 is no context to explain or identify the meaning of the article or title, and since the information is obtainable via searches I did not press for CSD, instead bringing it to AfD as an unsuitable article. I did not claim WP:G1 for gibberish nonsense. An article should not require me to look at reference citations to explain the basic idea that is being presented. The references are there for verifiability and in a sense further reading if I desired more detail. The article should, at the most basic level, explain the background of the dispute/conflict.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify, by name, the policy or guideline which you think requires the deletion of this article. It seems to me that you are suggesting this article should be deleted because it is WP:IMPERFECT, and that will not suffice. James500 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails the most basic WP:ARTICLE principle of "The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say". There is no summary of the dispute nor wikilinks to anything related to the dispute, therefore making no sense to me or probably anyone without any knowledge of said disputes.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 05:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That will not justify a deletion because it is a problem that can be fixed by editing. WP:ARTICLE is not marked as a policy or guideline and should not be followed in preference to real policies. WP:IMPERFECT, on the other hand, is certainly policy and should therefore be followed. In any event, WP:ARTICLE does not suggest that articles should be deleted (instead of being fixed) for the reason you mention. It is clear to me that the arguments you have made are completely without merit and that you are wasting my time by throwing up chaff. James500 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the time you have wasted trying to discredit anyone's opinion you could have made improvements to the article or merge it into an appropriate master article. WP:Some People Like To Hear Themselves Talk and Others Try To Help.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I did not advise you that the arguments you advanced are erroneous, you might go around repeating them elsewhere. James500 (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 'is this a random paragraph copy-pasted from somewhere'? It makes precisely zero sense otherwise - the title mentions 'imports' and 'footwear' but the article body (such as it is) says nothing about either. And as for 'so fix it' arguments, the article fails to provide sufficient context to determine what 'it' is, never mind whether 'it' meets our notability guidelines. The WTO has (or hasn't?) done something or other about shoe imports involving Indonesia and Argentina? Whoop-de-doo. Good for them. Why should Wikipedia care? Provide evidence of notability (which will at least let us know what it is that is supposed to be notable - so far, I haven't a clue) and then we can have a sensible discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article very clearly identifies its subject as a dispute between Argentina and other certain other countries over the formers' import regulations regarding footwear which were alleged to violate a treaty that the WTO is responsible for upholding which resulted in some kind of legal proceedings at the WTO. Any suggestion that the article fails to provide sufficient context to identify its subject is simply manifest nonsense. The problem is that you do not understand the source cited in the article. James500 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does nothing of the sort. All it does is provide a copy-pasted summary, and then cite a source which tells us little more. As for your comments about my level of education, <-redacted->. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could only answer your first two sentences by repeating what I have already said. James500 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly advanced legal training" is completely and utterly irrelevant (not that I see any particular reason to assume that you have any). What matters here is whether evidence has been provided that the subject matter in question meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Which it self-evidently doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic does satisfy GNG, unless you want to construe the requirement for significant coverage in a manner that is so preposterously restrictive that it would, if widely enforced, probably kill the project stone dead. James500 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and I'm sure that the legal profession is relieved to hear that. meanwhile, since you have entirely failed to provide evidence that the subject of this article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines (or even that the article actually has a meaningful subject), it is going to be deleted. Now run away and do something useful, rather than wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to take your bait. James500 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that in violation of talk page guidelines, James500 has edited several of his comments long after they have been responded to, thus making a nonsense of the above discussion. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, checking again, it is evident that the 'article' was nothing but a direct copy-paste of the summary in the source - almost certainly a copyright violation, which I have tagged accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WTO policy regarding copyright is here. It does allow the use of "unrestricted official WTO documents and legal texts" (whatever that means). If that does not cover the contents of the article (I've no idea whether it does), then it may be the article should be speedily deleted per CSD G11. James500 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been looking around and can't find anything that remotely comes close to ringing the notability bell for this. And I think the A1 argument is valid (though of course that's up to the reviewing Admin). In any event I have tagged this for CSD on A1 and A7 grounds. With regards to G11 I don't think that applies. I am fairly sure that the copy and paste is from stuff that's within the public domain though I could be wrong. Of course the copy and paste does nothing to help establish notability. Anyways I will let the reviewing Admin see if there is anything here worth arguing over in AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the A1 and A7 tags as I am fairly certain they are not applicable. I would not be sufficiently confident to remove a G11 tag. James500 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this case or dispute clearly satisfies GNG having received extensive coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. It also satisfies CASES (which although not a guideline is analogous to things said in NBOOKS about citations) by being frequently cited as a precedent and by being alleged to be a groundbreaking and particularly novel one. If the article is deleted for copyright reasons, the name of the case should be immediately redirected to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and recreated as soon as possible with non-infringing content. James500 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence whatsoever has been presented of 'extensive coverage in independent reliable secondary sources'. Half a page in a book isn't 'extensive' - particularly when it isn't even clear that the book is discussing the Argentinian-Indonesian case which is supposedly the topic of the article. And for the record, I find James500's attempts to browbeat contributors into agreement through appeals to (unverified) authority, personal attacks, and sheer bloody-mindedness entirely contrary to the manner in which deletion discussions are supposed to be conducted. I think it is safe to assume that the person closing this debate will ignore such irrelevances, and instead look at arguments presented in relation to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other people may not share your opinions about what "extensive" means. In my opinion, it is obvious that the book is talking about the case in hand. I have made no appeals to authority whatsoever. The only person engaging in "browbeating", "personal attacks" and "sheer bloodymindedness" is yourself. You are the one who told me to go and do something so sexually obscene that I am not prepared to repeat it. James500 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you are full of crap. A book discussing a case involving Indonesia would actually mention Indonesia, one would assume. But then again, the Wikipedia article in question, despite supposedly being about 'footwear' and 'imports', fails to mention either. So who knows what the article is actually about? Road Traffic Regulations in Mongolia? The applicability of Licences to crenellate to beach huts in Eastbourne? Regulations concerning the cultivation of bananas in Antarctica? It may as well be, for all it tells us... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in my opinion, I am not "full of crap". James500 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing Admin I reiterate my strong belief that this article as it stands should be speedy deleted on A1 and A7 grounds. And I wish to also note for the record that I take strenuous exception to the removal of the CSD tags by James500, which, while technically legal, in this case amount to an arbitrary veto by one editor of a request for an Admin review for possible CSD, despite the fact that all the other contributing editors in this discussion have expressed serious A1 concerns. Edits of this type are, in my opinion, inconsistent with the spirit if not the letter of the law. Beyond which I share some of the concerns raised by AndyTheGrump in his above comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are upset that I removed the CSD tags, but CSD is meant for uncontroversial or urgent deletions, and this, with the possible exception of copyright issues is neither. I hope this doesn't sound like a quibble, but Rinfoli did not mention A1 in his !vote above. James500 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation This AfD seems to be devolving into a shouting match. That's not something I have any interest in participating in. If the article is substantially improved I will reconsider things Until then my delete !vote stands based as per my last comment. Beyond that I haven't seen anything constructive posted here in a while and am moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 21 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 delete per G12 as the article was entirely copied from section 2 of this page SmartSE (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia[edit]

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

Borderline WP:A1 without any form of history or back-story. It might belong as a paragraph in another article (if one can be found), but not as a stand-alone article.

Similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the story behind this article is that Indonesia alleged that Korea had violated two international treaties (the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and the Anti-Dumping Agreement) and asked the World Trade Organisation, which is, IIRC, responsible for upholding GATT and presumably the other treaty to do something about that. It seems to be a request for some kind of abitration. See this. A1 is not applicable. It is obvious this article is about the particular dispute referred to in the source. The fact that the source is written in cryptic legalese is not an excuse to delete the article. James500 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE has no application whatsoever to this article. James500 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, missing WP:RS. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The World Trade Organisation is clearly a reliable source. James500 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, no valid rationale for deletion has been offered by the nominator or anyone else, so this will be closed as a keep by default unless someone makes some constructive comments about the notability of the dispute that is the subject of this article. James500 (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searches in GBooks for "Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia", "Korea Certain Paper" (the short title of the case) and cognate expressions bring up a substantial number of results that might conceivably satisfy GNG. What is wrong with those sources? James500 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC) This, for example, is clearly not a passing mention. James500 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a rat's arse how you 'construe' it - and if you are going to attempt to browbeat contributors into agreement in the same manner you are doing here [4] I shall consider reporting the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that sanctions be taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not browbeating anyone and I would be grateful if you would stop swearing at me and refrain from making further threats. James500 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you would go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Has received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. James500 (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual disputes by the WTO are not inherently notable and there's little (and that's kind) in the way of reliable sources suggesting that this particular dispute is notable. On a side note, I am also finding the conduct of James500 to be questionable - this is not his personal forum. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:44, 22 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 Stephanie (LazyTown). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Rose Mauriello[edit]

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

The article contains no independent secondary sources, only unreliable sources such as imdb or primary sources such as the Lazytown and Nickelodeon website. A google search finds no instances of significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V Me5000 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR which requires multiple significant roles. A Google turned up very little beyond promotional hits and a large number of what appear to be substantively duplicate articles on other Wikipedias. Sources generally fail WP:RS and are completely inadequate for a BLP. See also WP:NRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve, Although she's not appeared in much She has appeared in LazyTown which became widely known. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a lot of things that can be fixed in a defective article. But notability isn't one of them. It's either there or it isn't. Right now I don't see any, but will happily reconsider my !vote if reliable and verifiable evidence of WP:N is found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LazyTown - per Ad Orientem - Who does actually have a good point - Other than LT there's no notability of her in anything else. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with history to Stephanie (LazyTown). Other than some announcements such as this one, the coverage is almost solely about Mauriello's time spent performing on LazyTown. I can't really justify her having her own article at this point in time, as much as I'd like for her to have one. She received an Emmy nom for her role as Stephanie and if she'd won it then we could argue for her to have her own article, but she didn't win and only wins really establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG (lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources) and WP:ENT (one significant role). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect redirects are cheap and keeping the history isn't a problem (unless someone thinks the current article has BLP problems). Hobit (talk) 03:36, 29 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 Elvis_Presley#Final_year_and_death. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Alden[edit]

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

Famous for being Elvis's fiance at the time of his death. Only reliable sources about her are just about that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elvis Presley#Final year and death. You can't inherit notability (or anything else, in her case - Elvis left her nothing), and her acting career is too limited. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Clarityfiend. Subject fails WP:NACTOR and sources fail WP:RS. See also WP:NRV. Sole claim to notability appears to be her relationship with Elvis which would fall under WP:BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some fiancées get notable for such, or with that as their spring board, but she didn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Redirect to http://arpt.home.xs4all.nl/tcbjewel.html <(Lowell Hays Elvis's jeweler website confirms engagement) Ginger Alden a very important person in Elvis Presley's life. Elvis's fiancee and person who found his body on August 16, 1977. Ginger Alden is a Member of AFTRA & SAG, did numerous commercials, USA and Europe Modeling career. Made 2 movies. "Living Legend" and "Lady Gray" for Earl Owensby Studios/Pacific International Distributors, various tv series as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliesong (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and Redirect~~ GoodHousekeeping Interview with Vernon Presley January 1978 "My Son Elvis" by Nancy Anderson "confirms" his son Elvis's "engagement" to Ginger Alden. " This is the love I have been searching for Elvis said, "I want more children, a son, and I want Ginger to be my children's Mother. After that Ginger and Elvis came over to show me her engagement ring." ^[1] ==References==

^ http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/interview_with_vernon_presley_1978.shtml#sthash.hJB21BgJ.dpbs

Juliesong

Striking duplicate vote by user:Juliesong You may comment as often as you wish, but we !vote only once. Also please remember to sign your name to edits using four of the squiggly lines called tildes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ginger Alden is also the author of "Elvis and Ginger: Elvis Presley's Fiancée and Last Love Finally Tells Her Story". Juliesong

Juliesong — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juliesong. As you are new here I don't want to discourage your efforts to improve the article but I am going to strongly encourage you to read our notability guidelines. The section likely to be of most interest to you for now is WP:BIO. You may also wish to look at WP:GNG. And with respect to some of your most recent edits please also note that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Orientem.

Ginger Alden was a well known actress and model, "known for her role on the daytime soap opera Capitol as Meredith Ross". She was also featured in a number of television shows including "Hollywood Beat" and "Life Goes On".Also, the starring roles in 2 movies; Living Legend and Lady Grey by Independent Producer Earl Owensby and distributed by Pacific International. She also attended Memphis College of Art where her artwork was displayed by the college. Juliesong

A spokeswoman for the "Claridge Hotel and Casino" in Atlantic City. Ginger also starred in more than 100 television commercials and had a successful modeling career for such products like Clairol, Vidal Sassoon, Maybelline, Aziza, Avon, and Virginia Slims and was seen on covers of numerous magazines. Ginger Alden was also Miss MidSouth of 1976 and first runner up to Miss Tennessee Universe. Juliesong

I have the unhappy feeling that you have not bothered to read any of the linked notability guides. And I also take note that almost all of the stuff you have been adding is completely unsourced. Please make sure you are citing reliable and verifiable sources for anything you are adding to the article. Unsourced claims are usually deleted out of hand. I will give you a little time to dig up sources that meet Wikipedia standards, but again, I STRONGLY urge you to read the guidelines I have linked. Most of what you have added is not going to fly as it stands. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying my best for you Orientem and am very sick with a cold. Trying to understand all of this posting tags, etc.. I hope I can work on this tomorrow. Feel too bad tonight.Juliesong

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Alden What needs to be done to that page to keep it from being deleted? Everything is verified on that page from "reliable sources" with external links added for further verification for movies and television shows, etc., Ginger Alden appeared in.

Comment I'm not sure Juliesong understands what reliable sources are or how to properly write an article, they add things that sound like a fan site and don't use proper tone. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Lady Lotus" has "an agenda". She does not like Ginger Alden as why report deletion of Ginger Alden's wilkipedia page as it has been on Wilkipedia for several years now. Others connected to Elvis Presley such as Jerry Schilling and Joe Espostio (to name a few) are actively on Wikipedia and do not have "reliable sources" cited on their Wikipedia pages. Again, See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Alden What needs to be done to that page to keep it from being deleted? There is verification on her page from "reliable sources" with external links added for further verification for movies and television shows, etc., Ginger Alden appeared in after Elvis Presley's death. I am still very sick with bronchitis Orientem and trying to get better with meds. Juliesong

Caution Julie and anyone else concerned, please refrain from personal attacks on other editors. Some recent comments do not appear to be in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Uncivil commentary can result in Administrative sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Julie, I have posted links to the relevant policy guidelines. Your comments and edits on here strongly suggest that you have not read them. I am not sure what else can be done. Leading horses to water and so on.... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orientem, I am sick with a bad case of bronchitis and trying to do the right thing here.Juliesong

Redirect to Elvis Presley or Delete as she fails GNG. No significant independent coverage from reliable third party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant independent coverage is cited in The Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper along with "unbiased journalism" of Elvis Presley's death and Ginger Alden by Commercial Appeal reporter Lawrence Buser regarding Ginger Alden, Elvis's fiancee. See http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/1977/aug/19/worlds-at-standstill-for-elvis-fiancee/?print=1 Juliesong

The paper you linked does give significant coverage. However, we need multiple reliable third-party sources that give her significant coverage for her to be notable. Here's what I see when looking into the references and links:

ref#1 is not showing anything on her.
ref#2 is an interview that only briefly talks about Ginger.
ref#3 is a video that only briefly shows her. No coverage.
ref#4 is a primary source
external link#1 is IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source.
external link#2 is a profile with two film listings. No coverage.

Unless more significant coverage is available, she still fails WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1, is an article that speaks of Ginger Alden as you have to read down the article. I am really bewildered as to how much more significant coverage you need regarding Ginger Alden as the internet and books are filled with facts and coverage that I have been trying to post here and obviously to no avail am I getting anywhere which I do not understand. Juliesong — Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an article on her there, only a Google+ link on Memphis College of Art. You've probably got the wrong URL there. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was showing the college that Ginger Alden attended as she attended that college in the early 70's. Juliesong http://elvisdecoded.blogspot.com/2011/06/81677-ginger-alden-revisited.html regarding Ginger Alden by Patrick Lacy a researcher regarding the facts of Elvis Presley. Juliesong — Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only second woman Elvis was ever engaged to. Elvis's TCB ring is probably one of his most famous pieces of jewelry. Elvis called his jeweler Lowell Hayes late at night, wanting to have an engagement ring made for Ginger Alden. They took the big diamond out of the TCB ring and put it into Ginger's ring which we understand she still has after all these many years. >pg 195 of Graceland the Living Legacy of Elvis PresleyElwood48— Elwood48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's not like Ginger Alden was engaged to John Doe. She was engaged to Elvis Presley and that has already been established and confirmed by Elvis's father Vernon and Elvis's jeweler Lowell Hays. Ginger was not only Presley's fiancee but the person who found his body on August 16, 1977 which was a huge event.Juliesong

Being engaged/related to a famous person doesn't automatically make one notable, just saying. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable has nothing to do with whether or not a company publishes one's book. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Alden had a very successful career in acting and modeling and is now an author and was notable enough to have the biggest publishing company to publish her upcoming book. Juliesong

Ginger Alden was also awarded "The Star of Tomorrow" award by N.A.T.O. in 1982. https://www.facebook.com/fansofelvis79/posts/590906307592121 Juliesong

Facebook fan pages are not reliable sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true however. Juliesong

See WP:BIT. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being the last woman to have sex with the Elvis isn't really a notable or distinctive event in world history. Since she did nothing of great noteworthiness before or after his death, this falls into WP:BLP1E and/or WP:ONEEVENT territory as far as I'm concerned. The coverage stems only from her placement as "Elvis' last girl". If someone wants to redirect it to a sub-section of the main Elvis article, fine, but it should be deleted first. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Notability isn't through blood or relationships. No independent notability outside of her engagement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources, she easily passes the GNG. Yes, notability isn't inherited--so she's not automatically notable for her relationship--but there is plenty of coverage of this person in books [5], News [6], [7] and plenty of others including coverage of her book release. Yeah, she easily meets the WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This gives her medium-level coverage at best, and the others are generally not third-party sources. Primary sources do not count as notable coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments All of those mentions are in connection with something about Elvis. I don't see any independent non-trivial coverage whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, Jamie. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAHHHH. So? Shall we look for coverage of baseball players outside of baseball? She's gotten a large amount of coverage. She's written a book and that book has gotten coverage (and reviews etc.). An essay on notability does not override the GNG. She meets our inclusion guidelines. Her book likely meets our inclusion guidelines for goodness sake. Hobit (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Elvis Presley, as per other editors. Article is inadequately sourced and does not establish general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than meeting the GNG? Hobit (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect as per above - No indication of notability. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than WP:GNG which is our definition of notability? Hobit (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elvis Presley#Final year and death, per WP:BLP1E. Miniapolis 21:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Because being the person to find Elvis dead--an event extremely well covered both at the time and many many years after--is "not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."? Heck, she's been accused in the media of being responsible for his death (significant) and it's clearly been well covered. Hobit (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Hobit; plenty of coverage. As is often the case, people confuse notability with celebrity. I wouldn't object to a redirect, as long as it's not this "delete and redirect" nonsense. Delete-and-redirect should be done in cases of egregious problems, none of which exist here. If this article is redirected, there is no valid reason that the history should not be preserved. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't give articles to people would would otherwise be unknown save for one event, you and Hobit both know that. Arguments of "it's reliably sourced!" do not overcome that, and are thus invalidated. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't assume what I know, Tarc. You wind up giving me way too much credit; I'm really not that bright. But I'm glad you've shed the sheep's clothing you were wearing for a few months; makes things much easier to sort out. "Invalidating" arguments that don't exist? Be careful; the last time you tried that approach at AfD, we wound up with a Featured Article! Joefromrandb (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one event being what? Finding Elvis's body? Being accused of responsibility for his death? Being engaged to him? Writing a book that saw coverage in RSes some 40 years later? This is no one-event. And BLP1E doesn't apply to people who aren't trying to maintain a low profile. By writing a book about herself, she can't be said to be doing that. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "one event" I imagine covering her affiliations with Elvis. The book is a primary source, which cannot be used to establish her notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never subscribed/ascribed, whatever the apt word is, to the inclusionist notion that "I want attention" satisfies the "low-profile individual" aspect of BLP1E, otherwise we'd have an article on every D-list 4th-rate ~~attention whore~~ actor in the country. The "1E" is the overall notoriety of being the last woman that Elvis banged; if all of her "fame" as it were stems from being that, then she doesn't get an article. At best, her name redirects to Elvis. Tarc (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If every The point of BLP1E is to keep low-profile individuals from being forced to be non-low-profile. That's why it was created. If every "D-list 4th-rate attention whore" meets the GNG and our policies, then yeah, we should have an article (WP:PAPER). In any case, I don't think the subject of this discussion is a D-list 4th-rate attention whore. Hobit (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out that that was a insensitive wording on my part, so I have stricken it. You're just as familiar as I as to how much of the project is littered with bios on these kinds of people, and where we draw the line to keep the true riff-raff at bay. The JetBlue flight attendant made a much larger pitch for glory than this woman ever did. Al Gore III was in the news almost weekly for a stretch as he came under the "look what bad stuff the spoiled rich kid is doing now" gaze of the tabloids. Think about the breadth and depth of what we can say about this woman; she was there when Elvis died, and spends some time talking about being there when Elvis died. s that truly notable? Encyclopedic? Can it be covered within the context of the main Presley article, or perhaps Death of Elvis Presley (which I am rather shocked to see is itself just a redirect atm). Tarc (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hobit and Joefromrandb. --do ncr am 03:23, 26 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 merge to Rakhi Sawant. Soman: A merge does not mean that categories have to be moved over. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Aam Party[edit]

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

No proof of "significant coverage", expect 1 news item that Rakhi Sawant founded it. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The party is less than a month old, let's remember WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. The Times of India is a RS, and though one of the sources provided is a deadink, the others are solid. As an alternative, perhaps if the party goes nowhere, then it could be merged into the article about Rakhi Sawant. But I say let it roll for a few months and see what happens. Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough of reliable sources linked, and if you don't consider The Times of India as a reliable source, well then the New York Times ain't one either. Ethically^Yours! 03:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. TOI is an RS, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Also, notability is not WP:INHERITED; articles in newspapers talk about Rakhi Sawant primarily. Until and unless the party fulfills WP:GNG's "significant coverage" clause, an article should not exist. Parties less than 1 month have had significant coverage. e.g. Aam Aadmi Party. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in the end it's circular; Sawant is famous, so RAAP gets media attention, since it gets media attention it becomes notable. I prefer not to merge it with the Sawant article, as it's not possible to add categories like Category:Political parties in Maharashtra or Category:Political parties established in 2014 there. Apart from Sawant, the party has also fielded a candidate in Thane. --Soman (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what gets the media coverage is important. If its not the party but just Sawant's connection with it, the content is better suited only for Sawant's article. (My speculation: Frankly, i would be really surprised if the party on a bit of a longer run has truily anything to do with politics rather than just publicity. That's based on Sawant's credentials so far. She has been vocal about social issues much more than other beauty queens of other parties. But she joining hands with other established parties is very well a likely possibility than she standing strong on her own with her green chillies.) As to the categories issue, redirects can be categorised. See how Yash Birla is under Category:Indian socialites when it actually redirects to Birla family.

Redirect to Rakhi Sawant per above statement. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As this is the election time in India several such articles may have been created. For now I suggest redirect to a section of Rakhi Sawant article. Later if the party gains notability and has sufficient sources then a new article may be created. WorLD8115 (TalK) 04:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I don't see any sign that there is coverage of this party is independent from her, consolidated coverage seems preferable. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:17, 30 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. The clear consensus was to keep this article. There was also a discussion about the relationship of this article to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which was out of scope for this AfD. What material should go in each of those three articles should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

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

This is borderline if not completely original research. It is a collection of gun control laws, commentary and reactions that occurred after the Sandy Hook shooting which in essence is original research. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in list of United States of America-related deletion discussions - and list of Firearms-related deletion discussions - and list of Law-related deletion discussions - and list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Almost 50 sources, from many from the highest profile news sources in the world. Beyond the personal tragedies/ramifications (which are obviously infinite here), the gun control push after newtown was the major result of the incident. Its been discussed by many many many reliable sources, and every bit of content in that article is sourced to reliable sources linking the item in discussion directly to Newtown. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a related article AFD, the nominator here !voted to merge, where this article is the most obvious merge target. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete - IF the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 article is kept. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Threaded discussion and questions below. Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fuck em if they can't take a joke.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the off chance that this nomination is not a joke, I note that the subject is one of the most notable I have ever come across in an AfD discussion. It is also exceptionally well sourced. All of which compels me to wonder; does the nom knows what WP:OR is? This appears to be an almost frivolous nomination. Or perhaps this nomination may be a byproduct of a peeing contest between some editors over this and another related AfD. Seriously. In either case, this is a waste of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this entire debacle is the result of a single editor who cannot accept consensus and has severe ownership issues. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ad Orientem - Utter waste of time nominating. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , actually a speedy keep. I was thinking of closing, but I've commented on these articles before. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are enough reliable sources. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP PER SNOW, It is the ORIGINAL ARTICLE that is a total mess, and should be deleted or merged. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete - The existence of this article comes across as WP:UNDUE and a POV fork to me. Yes, its well sourced as most of its content is rehashed from other articles. In fact everything in it is carefully selected content. There have been other (just as horrific) events that have generated public outcry and debate, but we do not have articles on their "after effects" with regard to any particular political movement. The articles themselves include the information along with related articles. If this were a List article, I would venture to say that few would think twice about its deletion, and that is essentially what this article is with some Editorial Opinion thrown in. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Biased article implies that this incident is far worse than others, per Scalhotrod. Article is WP:UNDUE. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

Questions: 1. There are discussions about "gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" in

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and in

Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

... so why do we need a separate, "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article?

I think because some troll told other editors to create it when they did not get their way [8]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of looking at it. Or maybe a good-faith editor boldly moved/renamed AWB 2013 to "Gun control after..." [9] without any real discussion while the "troll" (eye roll) who created it was out to lunch? Maybe. Also, maybe the "troll" (eye roll) knows better than try to discuss much of anything once a couple of pro-gun WP editors decide "its on." But let's leave that in the past. The question now is, is this article REALLY a good idea, or maybe one that wasn't discussed enough and is therefore maybe - just maybe - not a good idea on second thought? Lightbreather (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why ask these questions? You know damn well why the article was created.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, your actions have once again create a HUGE waste of time for a lot of people. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Why was there never a "Gun control after the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton)" article? That shooting was what fired up the gun-control debate in the 1990s.

Wikipedia and the world wide web did not exist then. So it wouldn't have the sensationalized recentism of the other 2 in question.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) article was created in 2002. [10] That might have been titled "Gun control after the Cleveland Elementary School shooting"; it wasn't just about the federal ban. And the "Cleveland Elementary School shooting" article was created in 2005. [11] AWB 1994 could have been merged with it at that time, and the whole thing moved/renamed to make a broader, "Gun control after..." article. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) article was created and it does include information about legislation that happened afterwards. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. If we're going to keep this article, shouldn't we edit the two articles above so that they're briefer, more summarized, and quit developing the gun-control parts of those?

Sounds like a perfect time waster for you. Have at it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this article, I will. That would be in keeping with WP:SYNC. And if we keep this article, I hope other involved editors remember this. Lightbreather (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it removes the subject matter from its context. We need MORE clarity on WP, not less. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. If we're going to keep this article, should we create a "Gun control after the [Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton)" article?

Sounds like a perfect time waster for you. Have at it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rhetorical question. I do not think we should create such an article... But maybe if we keep this one. But I hope we don't. Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, its a POV fork like this one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 2 and 4 are rhetorical questions worth pondering. Would such an article now be relevant? The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 article - also nominated for deletion - is narrow, specific, but most importantly, WP:SIGCOV in its own right. This one is broad, non-specific, and probably subject to recentism problems like becoming a bloated, rambling, disorganized WP:COATRACK mess. Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In close to 10 years of editing wiki, this is the first time I have seen a threaded discussion on an AfD page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow! I just clicked on the "Find sources: Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" link above, and on the "Find sources" link on the AfD discussion page for the AWB 2013 article. The difference between the quality and the quantity of hits is remarkable. "Gun control after..." 19 results; the top are yahoo.com polls and NRA-ILA articles. "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" 144,000 results; the top are .gov and mainstream news sources. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee willikers, if you type the sentence into google without Wikipedia on the end you get 1.6 million hits. Leapin lizards what's that about?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried typing and searching "gun control after the sandy hook elementary school shooting" instead of using the link up-top. I'll give you that gave a better search result - but I still think that this article will have the problems I mentioned above. Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of software products[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. For those who would argue to keep based on navigational purposes, we already have Outline of software, which is where List of software redirects to (Outline of software#Software products in fact). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete endless list. Secret ^account 01:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. This list is too large to be useful and completely unmaintainable. If there are editors ready to challange the "unmaintainable" bit, this list may be split and converted into list of lists, to be at least somehow usable, but I doubt it is worth effort. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Provides little value to average user and breaks the spirit and letter of WP. scope_creep talk 21:33 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete Arbitrary list. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 21 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 delete. This is an obvious case of WP:SNOW, and allowing this to sit here for 7 days will only give this undeserved validation. Therefore, I'm closing this now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Painful Reality: Misrepresentations of Black Women in Advertisements[edit]

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

Alright, this is the third article about African American women made in the last hour. Taking this to the Admin's noticeboard 123chess456 (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-it's written as an essay, and probably isn't worth a standalone article. Sources are not very good either. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Epic WP:NPOV fail. See also Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. In a sane world there would be some way to CSD this thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather obvious personal essay. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this is a well written, thought out essay, it's still an essay.--Auric talk 13:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while every word may be true, it's not an encyclopedia article. We don't publish original research. That's a purpose of college degrees and academic journals. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, an essay. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 21 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association season statistical leaders[edit]

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

Unnecessary and incorrect listing. We have separate lists for each of these statistics for a reason. Several of the entries are incorrect because they rely on incorrect criteria, which would make it a bear to correct. Hoops gza (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's useful to be able to see which players led in multiple categories the same year. Being inaccurate just means it needs to be fixed. Also, change the title to List of National Basketball Association statistical leaders by season. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur with the above user. It is useful to see who led in multiple categories, which is the reason I created the list in the first place. Mistakes on the list can be fixed, so that is certainly not a legitimate reason for deletion.—Chris!_c/t 22:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We can see who led in more than one category on the NBA records page. There may be a few missing at the moment, but they would be easy to add to that page.Hoops gza (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That page is pretty honking long. It might be better to transfer those bits here instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Errors, if any, seem like a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem and not a reason to delete. Topic seems notable and summarizes annual leaders in one list.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 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 snow close per this discussion and speedy by WP:A10, as it doesn't really expand on Miscegenation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African American Women and Their Role in Interracial Dating[edit]

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

Delete, I have no idea what this is but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 123chess456 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another clear breach of WP:NOTESSAY. LordFixit (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, a legitimate topic for an essay, but Wikipedia isn't the place for them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Epic WP:NPOV fail. See also Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. In a sane world there would be some way to CSD this thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 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.

Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Tinker: City of Colors[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:50, 18 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) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This AfD nom is hugely premature. The article is less than 24 hours old and the editor is a newbie. Please take a look at BITE and take a deep breath before PRODing or AfDing brand new articles unless they have irreparable and obviously fatal defects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't get it. There is huge evidence of notability. In-depth coverage in most major sources at WP:VG/RS (IGN, Polygon, Game Informer, even non-English RSes like the Polish Gry-Online or German Game Star...) Due diligence apparently neglected by nom. See WP:BEFORE. -Thibbs (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I've added two; others exist. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:38, 21 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 snow close. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Black Women on the Internet[edit]

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

I tried reading through this but it seems to be some sort of feminist screed about caricatures of Black Women. This entire thing doesn't really make sense, and there's even 2 paragraphs of a summary of the introduction of internet memes. The first part is just a listing of 3 stereotypes of black women throughout history. Then, it expands into an extremely POV rant that I cannot comprehend. This isn't even written like a Wikipedia article, as the entire thing sounds like an essay. 123chess456 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing wrong with feminism, but this article is a clear case of a breach of WP:NOTESSAY LordFixit (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with LordFixit. It's a legitimate topic for an essay or academic paper, but Wikipedia is not the place for such things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed WP:NOTESSAY. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, this doesn't appear to fit in with Wikipedia's mission, it's pretty much a user's personal essay. I Feel Tired (talk) 05:11, 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 Speecy deleted, copyright violation. Would soon have been a snow delete otherwise anyway. Fram (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 3 (PIXAR Sequel)[edit]

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

Fan storyline, likely not real. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Ideas_for_disney_pixar_cars_3 Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fan speculation. We've already got a redirect that covers the discussion of a possible sequel. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This has been re-created several times at Cars 3 (prior to it getting re-made as an article for a different film) and at Cars 3 (Pixar Film), although I do think that there have been other names. This would work as another redirect target, but I'll be honest that this will probably need to be protected to avoid further attempts to re-create the article. On a side note, the new article at Cars 3 will likely need to be moved sometime in the future since odds are high that Cars 3 will get made and it'll be the most likely search topic. It doesn't need to be done now, but eventually it will be necessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable content deserving of its own article, Cars 3 (Pixar Film) already exists and points to the appropriate information in Cars (franchise), and the title fails WP:NCFILM. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:10, 21 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) 04:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Whipkey[edit]

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

Blatant failure of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I call your "blatant" and raise you to "egregious". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per obvious reasons LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:56, 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. There is sufficient disagreement about their level of notability that I am happy applying WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, following the tweet from Karleigh. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katie & Karleigh Santry[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is a procedural nomination. An anonymous editor PRODed this page with the concern: "This page is about me and I do not want it online anymore." Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, if there is no clear consensus to keep an article, and the subject is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure", then it may be deleted. I'm taking this to AFD to discuss notability, etc. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry but anyone can say "This page is about me and I do not want it online anymore" .... My bet is it's an IP simply wanting it deleted "for teh lulz", Anyway Passes GNG so Keep. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, if we always assume it's an IP wanting deletion "for teh lulz", we may be biting down on those cases where a subject really is uncomfortable with their article. It's better to discuss deletion via the usual process than to summarily ignore it. Mz7 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually very true, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the request below & WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't exactly understand how this all works and whatnot, but this was something I did a long time ago and I don't like it showing up on google search. It's embarrassing and I'm uncomfortable. How can I get this fixed and prove that this is Karleigh Santry speaking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.5.89 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we can ascertain that it's Karleigh herself, then I would support deletion. People shouldn't have to live with embarrassing Wikipedia pages that detail the bad music they were obsessed with as teenagers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most viable way to ascertain this is to do so on an external website. According to the article, Karleigh Santry has a Twitter account. I suppose if it comes down to it we could ask her to write a tweet... but that may be pushing it too far. I'm not exactly sure what the usual way to approach these requests is. Mz7 (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'd just send a tweet asking I suppose confirmation as all we for know our request via there website could just be ignored ? -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted a message at User talk:76.78.5.89 requesting they post a tweet (or a note on any other external website capable of providing adequate verification.) Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karleigh Santry just posted this tweet on Twitter. Looks like this confirms this beyond all doubt. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Mz7 (alt) (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that's deffo confirmation :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's good enough for me. She made a splash a few years ago, but it was nothing so notable that it would make her a public figure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Katie Santry and I do not want this page deleted!! it looks great and shows what we have accomplished at such a young age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie santry (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tough shit, We asked for a legitimate confirmation and you gave it.... With all respect you should've thought about that in the first place before requesting deletion.... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now I think this is a random person wanting the article kept "for teh lulz". Note that WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article, and usernames which implies they are related to a real person are customarily blocked to prevent impersonation. Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if it was her sister seemingly unaware ?, They also attempted to change the afd template and blanked the Talkpage as well. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep - whatever happened to "notability does not expire"? They were notable in their time, therefore they are notable. BLPREQUESTDELETE does not overwrite that. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an online free-content open encyclopedia that is the fourth most-visited website in the world, we must be very sensitive about our articles about living persons. This is one of the principles the WP:BLP policy was founded upon. We must balance our goals as an encyclopedia with our concern for the welfare of living persons. Here, a relatively unknown non-public figure has requested, in good faith, that their page be deleted. Reading the article, it's definitely not one of our best articles, and I could see how it could be embarrassing to the subject. Granted, if we were talking about someone like Justin Bieber, who is a widely known public figure, we would clearly retain the article even if the subject requests deletion. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is a policy formed upon the BLP principle, and on case-by-case bases, WP:COMMONSENSE can and should take over. That's my two cents. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the subjects of the article have sufficient notability to keep this article against their request. Under these circumstances, "reluctant keep" doesn't make any sense at all to me. If we're reluctant to keep it, then we should delete it. Peacock (talk) 12:00, 21 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 -- Y not? 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Katter[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Katter holds no public office or no public role LordFixit (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a statement in support of equal marriage rights, should I gain a Wikipedia article? Katter appears to have an article purely because he is the half-brother of someone who he disagrees with. Previously held very minor board roles. LordFixit (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can absolutely have an article for supporting equal marriage rights if you get remotely near the significant, independent coverage in reliable sources that Katter has. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOL concerning candidates for political office. LordFixit (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not, nor has ever been, a candidate for political office. Oops. Did you read the article before you nominated it for deletion? The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to read WP:AFDEQ. 'Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool' LordFixit (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack to wonder why you've nominated an article for deletion citing politician and public office guidelines when the article makes obvious the person concerned has never so much as nominated for either. This would suggest either a) you didn't read the article, or b) you're really stretching to try and find justification for your nomination. Every argument you have essentially relies on people not reading the article, the attached sources which hit just about every major media outlet in Australia, and also ignoring the wide body of other sources, over a wide span of time, which could be used in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Katter is a prominent public figure who has been the subject of plenty of coverage, specifically about him, in reliable sources. He passes WP:GNG by a mile, and the nominators would actually do well to refresh their memory of that particular guideline. Even the most basic Google search makes it pretty obvious that Katter has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the suspect, and that this is ongoing. WP:NOTINHERITED is irrelevant when Katter is independently notable by passing WP:GNG, and talk about politician or public office guidelines is irrelevant when Katter has never so much as nominated for either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (snow) - passes WP:GNG without too much trouble at all. Stalwart111 23:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor activist who does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject clearly but minimally passes GNG. Given that it will forever be a crap and puffery magnet, and so an ongoing headache for all concerned - not least the subject - we can all do without it until he moves much further away from the margin of notability. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we had a WP:TOOHARDBASKET into which we could dump notable things we couldn't be bothered fixing or putting on our watch-lists. Hmm. Stalwart111 06:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess mine is a WP:BLP argument. He's notable - but marginally. The article is undoubtedly going to attract POV-pushers from all directions. Sometimes, it's going to be casting him in an awful light, sometimes in a saintly one. Since, in these circumstances, when the subject expresses a preference for the article to be deleted we accede to his preference, in the absence of any knowledge of the subject's preference I favour deleting it. You're free to differ. (If anyone has his email address, or can contact him without drawing the attention of hundreds of others such as tweeting him, please ask him how he feels about having a Wikipedia "biography".) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, now I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek and you go and ruin it with a great idea. Ha ha. Actually, in this instance I'd be keen to know what the subject thinks but I'm not sure how anyone would go about that. Is there any way OTRS could help? Stalwart111 11:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is still mulling this one over, I cannot tell you how little I want to hear Carl Katter's opinion on the matter. The subject contacting us to let us know they'd prefer deletion (i.e. that the article has bothered them, or distressed them, or blatantly misrepresented them) is one thing; actively seeking out their opinion is another matter entirely, and to my mind completely inappropriate for an AfD. Frickeg (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo did it the other day, actually (over a naming dispute, not an AfD). But let's not argue this point here. I won't be contacting Mr Katter. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am a member of the LGBT community myself. I have nothing against Carl Katter himself, however I can't see how he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. He has been in the news purely because he is the half-brother of Bob Katter, yet disagrees profoundly with Bob. LordFixit (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "I don't like the reasons this guy is a public figure" is not a reason for deletion in any guideline I've ever read. The significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is there in absolute spades, regardless of what you think of him or the reasons for his profile. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in quotation marks that I never said. LordFixit (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection to his having a Wikipedia article lies in what you feel are the reasons for his being a public figure, rather than anything to do with Wikipedia guidelines on notability - which is why you keep skating around the very large amount of reliable sources directly about him (and thus, his obvious passage of WP:GNG. It's not an unreasonable paraphrase. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells of WP:INHERIT. What he has actually done is comparitively minor compared to more notable activists in the fight for gay rights. All sources fail to show him to be a notable figure in the field. He's a bit player at best and the most he has done in public is get into a Twitter fight. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above IP (124...) is a (now-blocked) sockpuppet of a banned user. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:30, 25 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verbosity[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition. The whole article is just a list of examples of or synonyms for verbosity; there's nothing about this that actually makes it an encyclopedia article. — Scott • talk 16:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination. This article reads like an extended dictionary definition that's followed by a series of loosely-connected anecdotes. It seems more like a top ten list from Cracked.com than an encyclopedia article. Even if the topic were notable and encyclopedic, the article would probably need a complete rewrite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar shows over 25,000 hits for "verbosity"; the first few pages of hits shows dozens of papers where verbosity is the main topic. Most of these papers are on the topic of the occurrence of verbosity in the conversation of older people; it is an active topic in gerontology and cognitive psychology. Verbosity is also an important topic in writing style; most style guides I have seen mention it. This is a highly notable topic. The article itself could use development of the psychological aspect and more neutrality in the style section. Many short paragraphs make the prose seem disjoined. But these are all surmountable problems of ordinary editing, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of papers like "Aging, Inhibition, and Verbosity", "Measurement and correlates of verbosity in elderly people", "Off-target verbosity evokes negative stereotypes of older adults", "Verbosity and emotion recognition in older adults", and "Paucity vs. verbosity: Another analysis of right hemisphere communication deficits" make it obvious that verbosity is merely a characteristic being used as a measurement in various experimental or assessment contexts, not the subject of the papers per se. Attempting to conjoin them into a topic would be synthesis. — Scott • talk 22:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking (and Scott). The article titles convince me that this should be kept and fixed, even on dark and stormy nights when the rain falls in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it is checked by a violent gust of wind which sweeps up the streets (for it is in Wikipedia that our discussion lies). A perfunctory search turns up:

Stanislav Andreski makes a "scathing indictment of the 'pretentious nebulous verbosity' endemic in the modern social sciences in his classic work Social Sciences as Sorcery (1972)."
Plain English states "An inquiry into the 2005 London bombings ... found that verbosity can lead to misunderstandings that could cost lives."Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is manifestly not a dictionary definition. Much of the content is usage advice, which itself may conflict with WP:NOTGUIDE, but to say, "This is a dictionary definition" is to fundamentally misunderstand the linked policy page. The second paragraph of the policy states, "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." Clearly, this article does that. Furthermore, the list of synonyms for verbosity also accords with that policy (viz. synonyms should be merged). That is not to say that this approaches the standard of a good article, but its problems are eminently surmountable, as Mark viking notes. Cnilep (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 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 Keep withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Harsh (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian general election, 2014 (Arunachal Pradesh)[edit]

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

Article does not expand an existing article Indian general election, 2014. Harsh (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because :self-explanatory[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both pages are important in the context of Indian general elections, 2014 for WikiProject Arunachal Pradesh and WikiProject Assam. Also I want to ask nominator that by which rule or guideline he nominate both articles for AfD.--Prateek Malviya^talk 10:14, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of taglines in the Predator franchise[edit]

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

Trivial information, fails WP:NLIST Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since taglines are promotional and numerous, an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should focus on those that have been independently covered by reliable sources. Even with that being the case, the taglines are not sufficient for their own list. The most noteworthy ones can be mentioned at the franchise articles. (Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of taglines in the Jaws franchise.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this poorly sourced attempt to get around WP:IINFO. Whatever can be properly sourced as important to the plots can be included in the parent articles following instructions of WP:TRIVIA. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah. There isn't much else to say except that it's indiscriminate trivia. Could conceivably be merged to a franchise article, but I'm not sure that would be useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not really encyclopedic .... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:54, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Campos[edit]

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

My fail WP:GNG and guidelines for musicians SarahStierch (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 04:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 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 02:07, 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 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 List of universities in Cambodia. Not really any content to merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Education (Cambodia)[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 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 02:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to List of universities in Cambodia. This is almost certainly notable, but the sources I'm seeing are in ~~Thai~~ Khmer. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:43, 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, Randykitty (talk) 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Northern Star[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 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 02:33, 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Google Test" yields two non-blog site links, indicating a lack of secondary source coverage. CarnivorousBunny^{talk • contribs} 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable radio station. -[-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:52, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squaremouth[edit]

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

Non-notable company. When the article states that "The company has been featured in publications such as ..." what it really means is that the company president was reached to provide a single line of background information in articles about travel insurance in general, but not about this particular company. List of awards largely unverified, and largely insignificant. (Being fast-growing is not, in itself, a cause of notability.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article Squaremouth has been edited per the comments left by WikiDan61. The below changes have been made:

Removal of all publications which mentioned Squaremouth
Corrected citation of Inc. (magazine) recognition
Added recognition from TopConsumerReviews.com. This refers to Squaremouth's travel insurance website, rather than the company's growth. It proves notability of Squaremouth

Mes06c (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Significant company information has been added. It is all cited by unbiased, third-party sites:

Historical details about the company has been added, they are cited by the Tampa Bay Business Journal and the Tampa Bay Times.
Publications that simply mention the company have been removed
Company products have been added, they are cited by Fox Business, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

Mes06c (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the reference on the Squaremouth page represents significant independent coverage of this organization. The references fall into several categories:
1. articles about travel and travel insurance in general, in which Squaremouth gets mentioned in passing, but is not the topic of the article;
2. local articles in the Tampa Bay business press (regional business press does not usually indicate widespread notability);
3. review sites of questionable status
4. business directories
5. Inc. 5000's lists, which do not provide significant independent coverage, but generally link to a brief, company-provided profile.

Failing better sourcing, I don't see how this company can be considered notable. Find a couple of independent articles in some of the bigger national or international travel magazines, and you might have something. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 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 02:40, 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 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. Note that whether or not the organisations used as references are themselves notable is not really relevant. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not notable person. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the independent sources has in depth coverage. No native-language wiki article to poach refs from. Article built almost entirely by SPAs. PROD removed by @ErraticallyIntelligent:, so move to AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article in question has been referenced using as many independent sources as possible - which include: the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, the British Forces Foundation and Burke's Peerage all of which are considered notable organisations (by Wikipedia's standard or otherwise). Whilst notability is not through mere association, one must consider whether: a)Oxford or Cambridge would be granting honours to an individual who is of no note? b)A charity as well known as The British Forces Foundation would appoint as Vice President an individual who is of no note? c)Burke's Peerage would allow the creation of a record (note: the record appears to be a newly created record NOT just a small entry into an existing record) of an individual who is of no note? Therefore the individual, especially as he is being recognised by the above institutions, is notable enough to have a wikipedia article written on him. Ctfn 20:54, 02 April 2014 (BST)

(a) the coverage isn't from the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge, it from colleges associated with those institutions (but legally completely separate), colleges which are notoriously cash-poor (b) I'd never heard of the The British Forces Foundation until I read this article (c) Burke's Peerage website contact page has a suspicious comment about 'paid research'; I believe they've changed their business model recently? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comments above:

a) cash-poor or not, they are still very careful in what they promote - Oxford and Cambridge are (arguably) Britain's top two academic institutions, with a world reputation - and their constituent colleges (whilst separate entities) must still "toe the line" with regards to how they conduct themselves. They are not merely "associated" with the University, but are part of the University itself (no different to Trinity, Clare, Jesus etc. or any other Oxbridge college). My point - the colleges are still well known institutions and (for whatever reason) they have felt fit to recognise the individual of the article and furthermore they have not "tucked him away" but made mention of him on their website and written material. It is also quite clear that the sources were produced by the colleges themselves. If there is enough notability for them, then why not Wikipedia?

b) Just because you have not heard of The British Forces Foundation does not undermine its notability. Indeed it has its own Wikipedia page, which does not appear to have been rejected or deleted (my argument being that, I assume, The British Forces Foundation has passed its own test of notability). Besides, whether or not it is found on Wikipedia, it has received coverage in the British Press, has had associations with a number of celebrities and is a charity probably most familiar to members of the British Armed Forces. (As an aside, the following YouTube link - which whilst it is a promotional video by the charity - should highlight that The British Forces Foundation is not some unknown charity [12]). Again, my point, the individual is not just associated with the organisation (which I hope I have argued is one of note) - he has been appointed as a Vice President (reference to which has been included in the article).

c) Burke's Peerage do appear to offer a paid research service, but from what I gather entry on their records is still rather strict (I also believe this is something they have offered for quite a while - and is more to do with "we need to prove that you are who you claim to be").Ctfn 11:37, 3 April 2014 (BST)

Comment See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mahfouz Foundation involving a similar set of references and editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The sources seem good. It looks like he has been noticed by a quite a few organisations (some big, some small). He is also a CEO in Saudi, so surely he should be included as there is a category in Wikipedia of [Category:Saudi Arabian chief executives]. User talk:BenoitHoog 14:09 04 April 2014 (GMT+1)

Keep - I was responsible for removing original PROD. I believe the article should be kept - as per my comment. He is Vice President of the British Forces Foundation. If there is information on the guy, I'm sure people who are interested in the Foundation will want to know more. ErraticallyIntelligent 07/04/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErraticallyIntelligent (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The above editors are indef-blocked as socks of Ctfn. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 25 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 / 03:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is little corroborating information on the web. The term "His Excellency" appears fanciful as it is reserved for the House of Saud, or for those holding senior governmental position - not for any other person. The entire article leaves one feeling that "on the 7th day he rested". If an individual makes charitable contributions to private or public companies and institutions, whether in return for a title or for altruistic reasons, I would imagine that should not automatically make them a person of note. Lonscribe (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lonscribe appears to be an SPA as well with no contributions besides this discussion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

a) The use of 'His Excellency' (HE) is by way of the GCMLJ - which is a Knight Grand Cross of Merit from The Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. Regarding members of the House of Saud - senior members would actually be referred to as 'His Royal Highness' (HRH) [as with members of the British Royal family], junior members 'His Highness' (HH). I believe that the father (who is a Sheikh) would also be entitled to also use HE.

b) To answer the "on the 7th day he rested" the following reference show him contributing (recently) to St John of Jerusalem Eye Hospital: [13]. However, I've not added it to the article as it is merely mention of a contribution.

c) With regards to Lonscribe's comment: If an individual makes charitable contributions to private or public companies and institutions, whether in return for a title or for altruistic reasons, I would imagine that should not automatically make them a person of note. - I would agree with that to some extent BUT if the title or honour is considered noteworthy within a respected and fairly public organisation, then I would argue that there must be an element of notability. I have used the British Forces Foundation as an example in a previous comment, but he has been (and judging by his charity's website - is still being) honoured with positions of respect within other organisations (in fact the GCMLJ is another good example). Famous, definitely not - but I would still argue for his notability.

Ctfn (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

~~Reconfirm Delete~~

a) In fact there are other sources (such as that on Wikipedia referring to Faisal of Saudi Arabia) that clarify how the term "His Excellency" is reserved solely for members of the Saudi Royal lineage (or senior government officials when holding office), not businessmen, sheikhs or philanthropists etc and certainly not their offspring. In the same way that a British citizen outside of the royal family would never be referred to in English as “HRH”, the term “HE” would never be used to refer inappropriately to someone in Arabic. One notable omission of the article is that this family reputedly originates from Yemen (not of Saudi descent) so could never qualify. The fact that the term "His Excellency" is used inappropriately, reinforces the notion that this is not a suitable article for Wikipedia.

b) I only came across this article during some tangential research. The reason it stuck out compared to other articles on notable persons from the Middle East is that there are no independent, reliable sources of note, it looks "commissioned" and quite self-promotional in comparison. I have no problem with that in principle but as a part-time researcher, the context of an article is paramount so would expect to see such an article on Facebook or a private website, leaving Wikipedia undiluted and largely independent.

c) Yes I see the argument and agree that non-famous people can still be notable. However, that is not the case with this article. There are literally thousands of other Middle Eastern family members of large businesses that do not qualify for Wikipedia (correctly in my view) despite having names associated with global charities and institutions. This article would fall into that category in my humble opinion.

Lonscribe (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the duplicate delete !vote above. Only one !vote is allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the awards and honors section here provides enough notability to push him over the edge. Some of the sources here in the article don't really contribute to his personal notability, but I think there's just enough evidence here to make a case for him being notable. Ducknish (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reconfirm Delete~~. After some more careful scrutiny, the article appears far more suitable for a social media site, and would otherwise dilute Wikipedia. Detailed reasoning above.

Struck what appears to be a duplicate !vote in this unsigned entry. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find anything in the biography to suggest he may be an Excellency (or “صاحب سعادة “ in Arabic), which to the best of my knowledge, needs one to be holding certain official positions, none of which seem to have been quoted in the said article. The article looks like it was put together by an editorial team. It is this kind of article that gives the otherwise wonderful Wikipedia site a bad reputation — EARK123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (comment moved from top of page)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispampuffery of the worst kind. Sourcing is atrocious, and I do not think that such peerages and "academic" honors (I'll phrase this delicately) confer notability. In the meantime, I'm going to prune the article some, beginning with the portrait gallery of his royal highness. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that he's actually done anything noteworthy. Elassint ^Hi 17:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this appears to be a violation of WP:PROMO and WP:VANITY, Drmies actually cleaned the article to the point where I could not tell right off bat. However, further research of the editor who created the article appears to be based on WP:NOTHERE. I could not find any third party RS either. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:13, 30 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mahfouz Foundation[edit]

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

Not notable organsiation. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. This is a declined AfC submission copied to mainspace anyway, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mahfouz Foundation. PROD removed without improvement to the article. See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mahfouz_Marei_Mubarak_bin_Mahfouz involving a similar set of references and editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources seem reliable and also looked on the Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz and do not see problems with similar references (because he is the founder). I think if The Mahfouz Foundation is sponsoring events in Pembroke College in Oxford and Prince Michael is the patron then I think more there will also be more reported about the Mahfouz Foundation. User talk:BenoitHoog 13:53 04 April 2014 (GMT+1)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [Before an administrator thinks I am being underhand, I am being investigated as a "sockpuppet" - however I will still add a comment as I removed the PROD in the first place]. If links have been forged with Pembroke College and the charity has established an annual event there, then I think that notability has been established, and will become known to the wider community (if not already).Ctfn (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And Ctfn was indeed blocked. BenoitHoog was indef-blocked as one of their socks. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 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 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NONPROFIT. Cited sources fail WP:RS. A Google turned up very little on the subject and nothing that came close to ringing the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Not notable. There is no proper sourcing in the first place, and what there is does not prove it passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 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) 22:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by future Human Development Index projections of the United Nations[edit]

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

I have honestly tried hard to improve this article by digging up the cited sources with no luck. As such there is a lot of questions still open. Is this really relevant? How does this list compare to UN HDI list from last year etc etc. I don't see how this list adds anything. The article itself even states: The Paper cited for this article, however, is not supported by the UNDP Human Development Report Office. While it was originally made available online for review purposes, it was subsequently rejected. Extrakonto (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete One of the odder combinations of WP:AWARD and WP:CRYSTAL I've seen in a while, more or less the analogue to "List of actors by probability of getting an Academy Award in ten years". Given that the data is aging it's hard for me to see keeping a list of increasingly aging predictions. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research Secret ^account 15:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I was the one nominating for deletion but would also like to weigh in. This page doesnt seem to add any value. Extrakonto (talk) 17:27, 23 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. There seems to be disagreement here about deleting/redirecting the article, although everybody seems to accept that the subject is notable. Whether 1,2, 3, or more articles are necessary is not really a question for AfD. I suggest that the editors involved continue their discussion on the respective talk pages, whether or not this article should be redirected elsewhere can be discussed there. If necessary input from uninvolved other editors should be sought if a consensus cannot be obtained. Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enaction (philosophy)[edit]

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

A second new article Extended cognition has been created which covers the material by the same editor who also nominated this for deletion. Material is better handled either in Enaction or in the new article --Snowded ^TALK 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No.. The topic of 'enaction' of this article is a specialized sub topic of the understanding of 'mind". Philosophers have contributed a lot to the topic, but it includes other fields too, notably neuroscience and psychology, and cognitive science. So a better title might be possible, suggesting a move of this material if a better name can be agreed upon. Perhaps it could be renamed Enactive cognition? (Enactive, embedded, extended, embodied all are aspects of cognition, and embodied cognition and extended cognition already exist). It also has a lot in common with Situated cognition, although that article is more focused upon application to educational methodologies.

This proposal for deletion suggests extended cognition could absorb enaction. However, to date, there is no agreement about this, and the word 'extended' is less apt than 'enacted'.

Until greater clarity is reached, deletion is not a good idea. That dawning of the light probably is not going to happen soon, and deletion of this content will introduce a gap in coverage on WP if this content is lost. It would be more desirable than deletion to arrive at a better name for the topic. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brews, that it would be a loss to readers if this article were deleted. Not sure that it should be renamed though, as Enactive cognition would cover more than philosophy, e.g. biology, psychology, etc. Maybe we need an article like that. However, I think there is enough material to consider the philosophical aspects of enaction in e.g. perception, anti-representationalism, and the various critiques of the enactive approach from established philosophers.

The page has suffered from premature reversions, and needs time to recover. I favour trying to improve what others have written, rather than dismissing their thoughts. Most posts have something useful to say.

TonyClarke (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: I don't think this is intended as a referendum on the material itself. Brews created a new article but kept this one too... We want to avoid a WP:POVFORK so the question is: Does Enaction/Enactivism mean something different in philosophy than it does psychology?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: Machine Elf expresses it well. The content as it stands is fine, but it now appears in two possibly three places ----Snowded ^TALK 15:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Extended cognition is a misnomer for its present content. On the other hand, Enaction (philosophy) is a pretty good title for its present content. As Tony points out Enactive cognition would allow a wider treatment than just philosophy, but maybe such a change could be considered later when we find out how much of a straight-jacket the limitation to philosophy is. A peripheral issue is that the proper title for a broader article on 'mind and cognition' has yet to be identified. That article should provide an overview of the E′s, linking existing articles on each of them like Embodied cognition, but that article would not be entirely a philosophy article, but also would contain material related to neuropsychology, cultural psychology, and possibly even stuff about artificial intelligence (maybe Affective computing?), and situated cognition. However, for the purposes here of a deletion discussion of Enaction (philosophy), an article in flux, TonyClarke's position is sensible. Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Enaction~~ Enactivism* per WP:POVFORK, but save the edit history for it's relevance to the numerous discussions.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd happily agree a redirection, then if philosophical use expands we can look at an article again. IN practice I think Philosophy is moving to the wider issue of distributed consciousness and enaction will be a small part of that but only time will tell ----Snowded ^TALK 09:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, on redirection to Enaction: At the moment, Enaction contains the subsection Enaction in the philosophy of Mind. Its first sentence does not define this subject, but instead is about psychology. Its second sentence is technical jargon not understandable to anyone but its author. Until this subsection is modified to provide an adequate definition and explanation, a redirect is worse than useless. Brews ohare (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Brews you've proded it twice yourself, so you agree in principle to a redirect?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MachineElf: I suggested Enaction (philosophy) be replaced by Extended cognition because that is (as Tony pointed out) a topic larger than philosophy, and it's my opinion that treating the topic more broadly would be a better approach. However, the article Enaction is not suitable for a redirect as it stands, for reasons given, and Extended cognition doesn't appear to be what I thought it would become, so that won't work either. So my recommendation would be to write a stronger subsection Enaction in the philosophy of Mind in 'Enaction' and if that can be done (my uncertainties revolve around Snowded) then a redirect could be made. Brews ohare (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be deleted, renamed or redirected. There has been continued conflicts between the two main contributors, conflicts which are replicas of other conflicts between these two contributors on other entries. But that doesn't mean the page is invalid. I have done some foundational work, and was planning to further develop it. It is a valid subject in itself, so it should be kept. This uncertainty is caused by personal differences which need to be reconciled, or avoided, rather than deleting a page because of it. Get real, guys. TonyClarke (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony if you are prepared to make a real article of it fine, but if its just another coatrack (which it was when created) that is a different matter. And opposing OR is not a personal difference, get real please ----Snowded ^TALK 22:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also support your effort to take this page somewhere. Let's can this deletion proposal for now. Brews ohare (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to new title: It appears form the sources cited that Enaction (philosophy) while of interest to philosophers contains a lot of material more appropriate to psychology, including neuropsychology and cultural psychology. For example, various theories of perception are described that belong in a lab, not a philosophy armchair. To give adequate scope to this material it should be moved to a more general topic name, perhaps Enactive cognition, a parallel to Embodied cognition. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs to be moved but (i) the divisions between psychology and philosophy of mind are very blurred in particular how to interpret lab results. We also have people such as Freeman who happily occupy both worlds and there are others. The various Es are significant in modern philosophy and need treatment. Proposals to create a summary of article on that seem to be falling on deaf ears. We have an article on enaction, created one on inactive cognition would be a coat rack. What this discussion is showing is the need for a general agreement on the overall structure of how we treat this in philosophy and you charging around creating new articles with loose assemblies of quotations is not helping that. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your view of my "charging around" is your excuse for not engaging. You have turned your nose up at every suggestion, always proposing some distant day when you will descend from the mountain with your tablets. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does your suggestion address my WP:POVFORK concern? There are cases were we want separate articles, Zombie and Zombie (Philosophical), for example, but this isn't one of them.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf: It looks like the article involved in a fork is Enactivism, which also refers to Varela et al. Could you look at that and comment? Brews ohare (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Agreed, redirecting there would be good.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of Enactivism refers to interaction wiht the environment, as does Enaction (philosophy). It had its last major addition a year ago. This paper by Rowlands describes enactivism in a way that doesn't seem different from enaction to me. This anthology appears to use the two terms interchangeably. However, the WP article does not cover all the material under consideration for Enaction (philosophy). Should a rewrite of Enactivism be discussed here and now, before making a redirect? Brews ohare (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to keep arguing about the material under consideration on Talk:Enactivism but I don't think an AfD can wait that long... Be WP:BOLD.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean to say is go ahead and try a merger which should suffice to carry on the lively discussion there...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf: Although your plan is one way to go, I don't think I am the right one to do it, as it would be taken as a hostile act. I think I will suggest some changes to Enactivism first, and see how they are received. That may make a redirect a more obvious choice. What do you think of that? Brews ohare (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support a redirect, but exercise caution in changes to Enactivism ----Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "hostile" but I'm sure WP:CITEVAR will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and we better look to personal hygiene too, eh? Let's focus on the important stuff. Brews ohare (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enaction is a broad, interdisciplinary and emerging paradigm. It applies in biology, psychology, cognitive studies, robotics and many other areas. Given the traditional and strong interests of philosophy in cognition (e.g. perception, reasoning, logic, ethics, illusions v reality etc.) then I think it is important that we spell out the important role of enaction as seen in philosophy. It is developing as a huge and important field, and we don't want to bury away our work in some side alley of another article. We need to put redirects to this article, not from it. My humble opinion. TonyClarke (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: As you note, "Enaction is a broad, interdisciplinary and emerging paradigm. It applies in biology, psychology, cognitive studies, robotics and many other areas." The article Enactivism appears broad enough to include all these aspects. The philosophical aspects of Enaction (philosophy) are a subset of Enactivism, and quite possibly warrant a separate article. However, at this juncture Snowded has not participated in contributing material about post-Cartesian thought, he has deleted reference to Husserl, made inaccurate statements about Kant, and taken other steps to marginalize this article. If it is to be retained, the philosophical developments need to find their way into the article, and the aspects belonging to "biology, psychology, cognitive studies, robotics and many other areas" should be referred to where they provide examples for the philosophical developments, but otherwise be downplayed and left to Enactivism. Brews ohare (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this connection, the philosophical aspects in Enactivism could be brought to a focus and summarized in a subsection listing Enaction (philosophy) as the Main article. Brews ohare (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a good way forward Brews. I've never worked on an article where the conflicts between editors are so pronounced, personal and dominating the real business, which is to have useful information available to readers. I am exasperated at the apparent lack of agreement or even compromise between editors here, which appears to have become personal, and works against the principles of Wikipedia. TonyClarke (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: If you haven't seen this kind of thing before on WP, you've had a charmed life. Glad you see this proposal of two articles as a way forward. You will have to do the heavy lifting at Enaction (philosophy), but I'll try to help out. Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 18 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No: Eventually it may turn out that Enaction (philosophy) is a good treatment of the philosophical issues related to Enactivism. At the moment, both articles are in flux, and it is impossible to arrive at a sensible decision on deletion right now. The deletion discussion should be terminated until things have developed further. Brews ohare (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by "No" you mean you've already started the merge.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all: my position is that Enactivism will develop (future tense) into a general article that includes biology, psychology, neuroscience, cultural psychology, sociology, and so forth, while Enaction (philosophy) will develop (future tense) into an article on (among other things) post-Cartesian theories of mind. But right now deletion or redirection is beyond our capacity for judgment, requiring a crystal ball, and maybe even the cooperation of Snowded. Brews ohare (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft it's in flux and if settles to something sane it can come back; if it doesn't settle to something sane it can die a natural death. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brews has nominated WP:Articles_for_deletion/Enaction for deletion.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The merge to Enactivism has been completed, please redirect there.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MachineElf has confused the two articles Enaction and Enaction (philosophy). The transfer of material from Enaction to Enactive interfaces and Enactivism is complete and Enaction has been nominated for deletion. The situation of Enaction (philosophy) is as yet undecided. Brews ohare (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of lying is over the top, don't you think? Brews ohare (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's exactly what you've done.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to create a new WP:POVFORK with the completed merge target (Enactivism) by nominating Enaction for deletion while you insist on keeping your own new version of the article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no POV fork involved here. The present article Enaction was moved to Enactive interfaces and when Enaction is deleted the only enaction article will be Enaction (philosophy), which is supposed to be all about philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brews, you can't avoid the WP:POVFORK by nominating the original article for deletion. You're just creating your own versions of articles and trying to swap them out for the originals. You did not move Enaction to Enactive interfaces. You created a new article called Enactive interfaces and nominated Enaction for deletion.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction with no difference. The material from Enaction was copied to the new page Enactive interfaces and Enaction, now redundant, proposed for deletion. Because some of the material in Enaction belonged in Enactivism, a simple move to Enactive interfaces didn't accomplish the desired result, and some changes in organization were needed as well, that a simple move could not accomplish. I have no idea why you find it important as to how the end result was obtained.

Somehow you are trying to suggest some evil motive behind all this activity, which was simply the implementation (by your request to me) of a consensus between yourself, myself, Bob K, and Snowded. Brews ohare (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melodramatic nonsense Brews. There's a button on the top of screen to move a page. It's very simple and you choose not to do that. You choose to delete Enaction instead because you want to keep your WP:POVFORK.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:17, 28 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. Note that per WP:MUST, sources don't have to actually be used in the article to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Redding Pitt[edit]

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

I can only confirm that the first citation mentions the subject at all, and that one only mentions him in passing. Even setting aside the relative lack of citations, the subject is a garden variety bureaucrat and lawyer. Nothing in this article asserts any real notability. DELETE due to lack of notability. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 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 decker ^talk 05:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that no one can even be bothered to comment on this article's deletion discussion speaks to the fact that the subject commands little to no notability. Bonewah (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no one comments on an AfD nomination within a reasonable length of time, it is normally closed as "no consensus", which results in the article being kept. James500 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Appears to be two entries at politicalgraveyard, as Charles R. and as Redding, together, still no indication of notability, and unable to find coverage which would indicate otherwise. Bronze Star does not indicate it was for valor, and even if it were, a single fourth-tier award. No suitable destination for a redirect, ... Dru of Id (talk) 14:49, 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]

Keep as a (former) state chairman for a major political party. Searching "Redding Pitt" turned up [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and so on. - Dravecky (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like pretty marginal stuff, but if you could work that into the article, i might be inclined to change my !vote. Bonewah (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my standards: chair of a major state party, United States Attorney, defense attorney in a 'wedding cake' trial, and member of the Democratic National Committee. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note the in-depth coverage I found about the subject in my !vote above. - Dravecky (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also note that none of the 'in-depth coverage' mentioned has found a place into the article itself. Bonewah (talk) 16:44, 13 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. No verdict on whether or not this is a hoax; if somebody wishes this userified, feel free to ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Korran[edit]

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

Possible hoax, tagged as such since February. This is not my last name (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator, many inconsistencies and lack of references and sources on the topic. The topic itself is hardly found in a google search, therefore the hoax/original research tags. Simple facts are not sourced and the article overall does not seem to be neutral.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't believe this is hoax. Contrary to what is said on the talk page, there are numerous references to this individual in books. Here's an article in a Sri Lankan newspaper. --obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The second article is not reliable as it sites Facebook and Wikipedia as sources.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:32, 6 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} 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, of Move to draft to give time to clarify the hoax/not hoax nature. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at the available sources on Google, I am convinced that this is not a hoax, and that there was someone known as Korran who was a leader in, and probably the effective ruler of, Kudiramalai nearly 2,000 years ago. However, I am not satisfied that all the references in this article necessarily relate to that person: I think that there is a serious possibility of synthesis. PWilkinson (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a pattern of synthesis with this user. The same issues relate to Kudiramalai and did with Annius Plocamus. It is possible that various facts in the article are true however there are many reference and verification issues, not to mention the distortion and manipulation of information.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:21, 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have no idea, but am suspicious: the sources include "Tamils 800 years ago"= 1000AD, but the text refers to Romans = 1st to 4th centuries AD; and Phoenicians = several centuries earlier. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 20 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 01:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boraie Development[edit]

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

Article about an American real estate development company that fails WP:CORP. Apparently the article was created in response to controversies arising from allocation of relief funds after Hurricane Sandy, but even coverage of that is sparse. The company contacted OTRS with concerns about the claims made by some of the New Brunswick local media and I attempted to make it more neutral but ended up with a very "referency" stub whose main feature is something that at best belongs as a paragraph here or here. In my opinion there is no real secondary coverage of the company, and the controversy is not nearly enough to support an article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : Despite the nominator's focus on Sandy relief funds, the article about Boraie Development covers more. The company has built many multimillion dollars developments in New Brunswick and Newark, two the New Jersey's older cities, notably the tallest building in the first, and the first market rate apartment building in Newark in 50 years. The state policy to redevelop its urban core through "smart growth" and "transit oriented development", has led to incentives which the company has taken advantage public-private partnership. (Actually the creation of the article was inspired by List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick). Have done a re-write. Djflem (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no salient claim to notability in the article, because none of the sources provide one. Partnering with Magic Johnson and a single article on that is hardly the kind of "event" that could get the subject past WP:CORP. It's a company that builds buildings, that's it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 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]

Explanation of removal of references? Reliable references have twice been removed, once mentioning that "company contacted OTRS with concerns" and another time calling them biased. Why is the reference biased? What is the OTRS? What are the claims? How are the references being removed used in any way that either support or negate whichever claims are being made? Can that be explained, please, for the sake of transparency?

Appears to satisfy WP:CORP with coverage in New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Star-Ledger, The Press of Atlantic City as corporation and for its projects..(There are also numerous mentions in those newspapers and other regional/national publication and television programs with the attention Boraie got for Sandy funding, which is not the thrust of the article.) New Brunswick Today, a Central Jersey news outlet provides more in-depth information about the company, as would be the case since it's located there, but those references have been deleted. This company had done billions of dollars of business, and is playing an important role in "new urbanism", taking advantage of government incentives to do so. Djflem (talk) 17:20, 13 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, the !vote that only states "keep" provides no rationale for doing so, which contributes to this discussion being closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Soul and the Wolf[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. I had a hard time finding any reliable secondary sources, sadly. SarahStierch (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Westmeath Examiner Hot Press archives The Munster Express — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.77.237 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And most I did find are mere mentions or read like press releases. I can't access the Hot Press archives. Perhaps Wikipedians from Ireland can confirm that this band indeed notable. SarahStierch (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi User:SamanthaPuckettIndo, thanks for your participation. I'd like to learn more about why you think this article should be kept. thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marginal coverage over an 6 year period, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Murry1975 (talk) 08:52, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yazino[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. It has been a while since the previous AFD and so it might be expected that there might be more coverage of this company. I have searched factiva though and can only find press releases or very brief mentions in RSs about them coining the neologism sofalising i.e. churnalism. SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 24 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) 23:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Couldn't find any reliable sources via Google search for the company. Dmatteng (talk) 16:01, 28 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:50, 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 02:41, 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable company. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:23, 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 no consensus. The two main points of argument seem to be: is the coverage in third-party sources significant?; and is his notability if any tied to the single event of his AMA (i.e. does WP:NTEMP apply)? In both cases the weight of the discussion seems to fall on the side in favour of keeping, but not quite heavily enough for me to call it a definite consensus. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Eisenkop[edit]

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

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

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

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

Although sources exist for this article, at the end of the day, the subject's only notability arises from posting comments to Reddit. While Reddit is itself notable, the subject of this article is not notable aside from posting comments to Reddit. Seems like a failure of WP:BIO Jason Smith (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? I can tell you don't like it, but Mashable, Fox News, Time Warner Cable News, the Binghamton University Pipe Dream newspaper, the Daily Dot and the University of Melbourne have all decided that he's notable enough to devote an article specifically to him. That's significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of each other and the subject. That's a clear pass of WP:BIO. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) Someone who contributes to Reddit can in principle be as notable as someone who appears on/in radio, TV, print journalism, theater, as a YouTube performer, etc. It's all just media. What matters is whether sources meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning above. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, the coverage of this person seems to meet the criteria for notability. The origin of his notability isn't really relevant. Dbarefoot (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Popularity on a social media website is not grounds for notability. Apart from some popularity among some users on the site, the subject isn't notable in any way, and any semblance for now is temporary and recent. Ithinkicahn (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly his notability is not restricted to the site. If the subject isn't notable, then why did so many independent sources write about him? Oreo Priest ^talk 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to notability is made through reliable sources, not on the grounds that he is popular on social media. The sources are hardly recent since they cover a time span of nearly a year. Sam Walton (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:IAR – (1) the sources are thin. With the exception of the Fox piece, everything else is social media, local, or college news sources. (2) Article is an orphan. (3) Being a well-known social media personality is not notable per se and WP:FAME does not necessarily imply notability. I agree with Ithinkicahn that the nature of this particular notability claim is basically rooted in WP:RECENT. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It seems to me that when you invoke WP:IAR, what you really mean is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are judging my character rather than debating my argument. Agricola44 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
No character judgment involved. I'm just pointing out that arguing that this article should be deleted even if this means ignoring rules that suggest this article should be kept amounts to saying we should ignore the rules because you don't think it's suitable. That's exactly what WP:IDONTLIKEIT addresses. Oreo Priest ^talk 00:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you persist in lecturing me about how WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of addressing my arguments. To remind you: (1) the sources consist almost entirely of student newspaper articles, social media, or pieces written by the subject; (2) article is essentially an orphan; (3) the claim of notability in the lede is basically that he is a graduate student and very popular on a social media site, neither of which is notable per se. As I presume we all know, social media popularity is ephemeral, suggesting that a keep would result in an article having a fairly short "shelf-life" rather than an article of lasting significance. For the record, I've never heard of Mr. Eisenkop, nor do I use use/read/contribute to Reddit. Consequently, I have no basis whatsoever to either "like" or "dislike" this article. My argument is strictly substantive rather than emotional. I hope this clarifies matters for you. Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Regarding your points, I hadn't responded inline because they have been addressed elsewhere. 1) I don't agree the sources are thin. Fox News + Time Warner Cable are none of what you described above; Mashable and the Daily Dot seem frivolous to you, but I don't agree with your assessment, and the university newspapers are support for these others, not standalone evidence of notability. 2) Being an orphan is no grounds for deletion. 3) You take it as self-evident that nobody can be notable for the reasons he is. Wikipedia has well-established policies ("rules" if you will) about what's notable and isn't. It's true that this case your argument is probably close to WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE as well as WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which need not be your personal opinion on the article's subject). What reason could you have for suggesting we ignore these rules aside from a personal feeling that it shouldn't be here? Of course, you later describe rules which you think work against this article, which is a much more constructive engagement with established consensus than suggesting we should ignore it. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the Fox piece is good, but the rest are essentially indiscriminate (a common reason we don't accept them, as we were just reminded by DGG here in a recent AfD). True that orphanism is not an exclusive reason, but it does help paint a picture that the case for this individual is very weak, at best. Since sources are inadequate for satisfying the usual guidelines, it leaves the question of whether this person is notable per se, i.e. "my reason" as you've called it. There are such people. For example, the chancellor of a university is notable per se under WP guidelines, even if there has never been a single substantive article written about her. However, Eisenkop seems to be a grad student and a social media personality. As I've said, neither of these satisfies notability per se. So, what else is there? Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Reddit is used by millions of people, and Unidan is very well-liked on the site. Definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.222.87 (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously plenty of coverage as shown by the sources used. Sam Walton (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has garnered significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. It may seem silly to some of us that reliable sources exert the effort to provide this coverage, but Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Objectively speaking, this fellow meets the definition of encyclopedic notability. Xoloz (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the General Notability Guidelines the one thing that's I focus on when I think about this is "Significant Coverage". I don't think it has sufficient secondary source coverage to be "Significant". Secondly under "Notability (People)" (BIO), he doesn't fit into any standard category that has additional criteria to consider, and all I'm left to consider is whether he has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Is "commenter on a popular discussion board of forum" a "field"? The rules seem to indicate that "popularity" is a strictly secondary consideration. I think perhaps someday if he keeps up what he's doing for say 5 to 10 or 20 years he might very well meet notability and 'significant coverage' guidelines, especially if his 'renown' and 'fame' lead him to become a figure across media types. But not yet. Like others, most of the sources are not what I'd consider "good secondary sources". Disclaimer: I'm a Redditor and I originally would have been a proponent of "let's make wikipedia be a list of everything" -- but I've come to accept what Wikipedians have decided upon. I normally tend towards keep, but I don't think it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability yet. CraigWyllie (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh - The reddit sources are not, in and of themselves, particularly impressive, but there are secondary sources which are specifically about the subject. So this meets the GNG. But WP:PROF is questionable, so I'm not really sure where this leaves us. --N Y Kevin 17:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to satisfying WP:GNG, Unidan satisfies this notability criterion for celebrities: "2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.". Many of the sources cited in the article confirm his celebrity status and fan following on Reddit. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that WP:PROF says: "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO ... it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines.". I don't think anyone's arguing he is mainly notable for his work as an academic, so that guideline doesn't really apply here. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources have written in detail about the subject, so this subject satisfies WP:GNG. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since this page, and specifically this AFD, is linked to from a highly popular thread on reddit itself, I would be cautious of the balance of viewpoints in the discussion. Ithinkicahn (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor just attempted to remove a !vote and the {{not a ballot}} notice. I have reverted them. All editors are reminded of the discussion guidelines. Do not remove votes you disagree with. --N Y Kevin 20:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spend some time on Reddit and have gained an appreciation for Unidan's attempts to educate Reddit's masses on biology, but at the end of the day he's just a popular user on a social media site and his influence does not extend beyond that. There are sources, but they are thin, and I don't think they contribute to establishing long term notability, but rather a sort of transient "who's who on one corner of the internet this year." If we're going to start hosting articles on people whose only claim to fame is popularity among users on a social network then I think we're severely diluting our notability guidelines. N^oformation ^Talk 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Unidan is very well-liked on the site. Definitely notable" – really? I wonder if we might have a more substantive discussion. Some panelists above simply assert notability because there are many sources, which is true, but have not commented on the sources themselves. Many are of the kind that we conventionally assign little to no weight, for example the piece by Rahman is from a campus newspaper (as are some of the others). Social media pieces, like the Mashable write-up by Silverman are similarly not terribly weighty. I would absolutely sign-on if these were from more solid venues (books, edited works, major dailies, established periodicals, or anything such like), but the only source that seems to be more than local and not social media is the Fox piece. Agricola44 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And DailyDot is basically a tabloid. The occasionally have some decent stories that you can tell are written by people with a journalism background, but most of the time it's clickbait crap. N^oformation ^Talk 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Can he pass WP:GNG as a blogger? My view is no. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, but only just. He may not pass some of the more well-defined guidelines, but remember, they're just that: guidelines. He has had enough mainstream media coverage to definitely justify the noteworthiness necessary for an article. If WP:PROF doesn't include a clause for people who gained notoriety for something not directly causally related to their line of work, perhaps it's WP:PROF that's wrong, and not the article. He passes GNG easily and I reckon that that's more important than passing the more specific guidelines. Sellyme^Talk 12:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starters, being "popular" on reddit doesn't make someone noteworthy. All articles are on the same topic, him being popular on reddit, seems a bit tautological. WP:1E and WP:NOTWHOSWHO also seem to justify flagging this for deletion. Esox id^{talk•contribs} 16:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either of those arguments makes sense. All of the articles are of course on the same topic, what's wrong with that? That's like complaining that references to the Rolling Stones are only on the topic of them being musicians. Further, neither WP:1E nor WP:NOTWHOSWHO are even relevant here, because there is no event in question. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles focus on his "AMA" that hit the front page, which made him a popular user to ask questions. Even the article titles say as much. Binghamton University TA schools Reddit. 'Excited Biologist' Captures Hearts and Minds of Reddit. How u/Unidan became Reddit's go-to science guy. Reddit, Research and the Strange Case of /u/Unidan. This ecologist and amateur comic is the most popular man on Reddit. Binghamton University graduate assistant rises to Reddit fame. The thesis of each article is his AMA and as most state in one way or another, his rise to reddit fame. Those appear to satisfy WP:1E and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Esox id^{talk•contribs} 00:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the articles. The thesis of none of the articles is his AMA. Unidan became famous well in advance of the AMA because he answered biology questions all over the website. All of the titles refer to that, not to the AMA. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject meets WP:BASIC, thus qualifying for an English Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the above user that the subject meets WP:BASIC. --unsigned entry from Virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.134.181 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is one tough decision. I'm pretty sure this might be closed as no consensus. Every !vote has valid points which is completely agreeable. Well it might not notable in the short-term, but could in the long term, possibly. As Colapeninsula said above, anyone on the internet or media could be notable, in this case we got a subject who posts comments on Reddit and gains popularity from it. The sources in the article are quite reliable, however just because something is listed in a reliable source may not be notable. Things to add are WP:NTEMP states: In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. For now and for the good, Userfy until it is ready to be published smoothly and in par with the many notability guidelines. --///EuroCarGT 20:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic satisfies the general notability guideline, as witnessed by references that are cited in the article. That should be the end of the conversation. Melchoir (talk) 04:41, 23 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. Possibly leaning towards keep; in any case there's no consensus that deletion is necessary. The rename seems reasonable. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir's Sobor[edit]

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

Yet another incomprehensible gibberish generated by User:Superzohar. Ghirla^-трёп- 15:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written and fails to cite any sources. G S Palmer (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userify until properaly translated. At present there is too much untranslated Russian. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 6 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 01:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, I think there's enough material out there to write an article on the topic. In English, it's usually referred to as the Vladimir Council, and any article on the topic should probably end up at that name. The question here is whether this is sufficiently useful to retain until that article can be written, or whether this is time to break out the WP:TNT. I can largely confirm that the current text is a machine-translated partial copy of the Russian Wikipedia article on this subject, which is itself in rather dire need of improvement and proper sourcing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, adding sources e.g. [19] [20] [21]. IMHO this translation is a good enough draft to start from. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 13 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 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 Chamling language. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chamling people[edit]

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

Whereas the Chamling language clearly exists, the article of the people is unreferenced, and I was not able to find a single source which would confirm that Chamling people exist. Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 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 01:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kirati people. Plausible search term, and that seems the most accurate target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:35, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chamling language. From that article: "Chamling is one of the Kiranti languages spoken by the Kiranti and Rai peoples of eastern Nepal." Seems like this is a better redirect since it's not just the Kirati people who speak it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:38, 21 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ott[edit]

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

Hasn't played in a fully professional league or played for a national team - fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.

The article claims he made his international debut in June 2013. He was called up to a match against Hong Kong but he didn't make it onto the field. Hack (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while he fails WP:NFOOTBALL he does not fail WP:GNG. Süddeutsche Zeitung certainly is a reliable source. In depth coverage in the regional papers which goes beyond routine anouncements. Out of region coverage which extends to Polish, Spanish and Indonesian sources. While I can't vouch for the latter three as "reliable sources" in the Wikisense the transfer and the buildup to it has certainly created a media ripple that goes beyond the routine youth player moving to a major club. Might have something to do with the fact that he is built up to be "einer der talentiertesten Spieler Deutschlands" Agathoclea (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about the Donaukurier source, especially as it came prior to local source. After reading about his brother their interest makes geographicaly sense. Agathoclea (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I could have sworn an Azkals player with the surname "Ott" played at least once (although I cannot recall if this is the player in question). Regardless, he appears to have received some coverage in reliable sources, foreign ones even. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: - you're thinking of his brother, Manuel Ott. Giant Snowman 08:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Fair enough, Delete per above, and for not playing in a professional league or for a national team. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still fails the significant coverage criteria of GNG. Sources provided by Agathoclea are still about the transfer of the player and gives a bit of background to it rather than being directly and detailed about the player which is what you need to satisfy the significant coverage criteria of GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since he has never played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, the article fails WP:NSPORT. The coverage he has received is routine sport journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 19 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. Sources provided above to support GNG seem very short to me. not convinced they are significant enough. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 22 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor James Constable[edit]

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

No coverage in depth enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. There is literally only one paragraph in one book [22] that mentions Constable, and this is in relation to his musings on UFO creatures. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- classic instance of failing WP:BIO. jps (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to absence of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh good grief, is this, and this and this and this, with accusations of fraud against the then-fugitive Constable the same guy? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move - I've added three sources in and removed the blatant copyvio that was taking up half the article before. He's in a few other books as well and seems to have had an impact on cryptozoology and the history of UFO-ology. The two objections I can see people raising are A: This is utterly insane - which is true, but so is the rest of this 'field', you've got to look at it as it is. B: One of your sources is Brad Steiger - I accept that he, too, is insane - but I defy you to find anybody else as knowledgeable about the history of the subject. If he were talking about theories as if they were true, I would agree. He seems to simply be recounting the supposed facts.

Also yes! It is the same guy! I think that adds to the notability whilst also adding to the batshit insanity. (The Brad Steiger book also talks about that, but does so in a non-neutral light so I didn't add it) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section on the added insanity. Ripped $3.2 million off of the Malaysian government. With pipes to influence chi. $3.2 million. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The skeptic Ronald Story covers a page on the ideas of Constable and other similar writers [23] from The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters. Constable was also in a video documentary [24]. Not sure if it is reliable but also information on Constable in Far Out: 101 Strange Tales From Science's Outer Edge by the writer Mark Pilkington [25]. Another reliable source would be UFO Religion: Inside Flying Saucer Cults and Culture by Gregory Reece which mentions the ideas of Constable on one page [26] and dam it's a shame I don't have access to the book but I have just discovered that the science writer/skeptic Morris Goran has included a few pages in his book on debunking Constable's wacky ideas. The book is The Modern Myth: Ancient Astronauts and UFOs which was one of the first books to debunk Von Daniken. Goblin Face (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the 101 Strange Tales bit at least is a word-of-word copy of one of the sources already in there. Going to look at the others later, but that one is out. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:57, 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per adding of reliable sources and removal of copyvio problems.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given the addition of reliable sources etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:35, 22 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. A lot of the "keep" arguments boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFF and generic historical arguments without reference to relevant policy. The few "keep" !votes that do actually address the sources fail to establish how this passes WP:NOTNEWS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kharkiv People's Republic[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kharkiv People's Republic

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

This was not an "unilaterally declared state" but a group of people who in a lobby declared to have formed a state while never being in control of anything and they were all forcefully removed a few hours after their proclamation.... This "republic" has not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same can be said for the Donetsk People's Republic. But that page is still standing. Arguably even the United States was created by a few people sitting in a room. Dapiks (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The United States was a rebel movement and had de facto control, military, etc. This group has nothing, it's just protesters. You can't just declare things and expect it to mean something--Львівське (говорити) 15:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US at the time it was declared had a few 'activists' organized in Committee of correspondence who did not have control over the territory of what later became the US.Dapiks (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this notion is that other countries recognized America as being independent, also a big hole is that Wikipedia was not around back then, we are talking about here and now and about this article not about the United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much different from, e.g., "Belarusian People's Republic". --78.84.37.136 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian People's Republic lasted about a year... This Kharkiv People's Republic did not even get started... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and it exercised a clear control over the claimed territory, up until the Volga River! (sarcasm) --2002:4E54:2588:0:0:0:4E54:2588 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huge delete - a bunch of activists making a fake proclamation from the lobby of a building they were booted from does not deserve an article as a legitimate country. Merge content into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine --Львівське (говорити) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like it's just a few activists though [27] Dapiks (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the appeal to merge content into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if I knew that this would stir up feelings among the Ukrainian contributors, I probably wouldn't have created the article. I understand the emotions and concerns that may be flying around right now - and if you think that taking off a page on wikipedia may help sway public opinion in one way or another, I'll agree to delete the page for now. BUT, to me the Lugansk or Kharkiv republics are just as legitimate or illegitimate as the Donetsk People's Republic which was voted to be kept. Either all three should be deleted and merged into the pro-Russian protests or all three should stay. At least when this all boils over, these pages should be allowed to stay. Dapiks (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Donetsk article was not voted as keep, it's still being discussed. The talk page shows unanimous support to rename it or merge it --Львівське (говорити) 16:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit fed up that editors who never met me are telling me what kind of person I am and what I am feeling right now... My reason for putting this page up for deletion is that this "republic" has not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are fed up that people are trying to connect with you on a human level? Hmm, nice way of fighting for the cause, which given your activity here it is obvious you do.Dapiks (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Wikipedia "sways public opinion in one way or another"; you decided for yourself that I think that.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - nothing differentiates this article from Donetsk People's Republic which is still up. Dapiks (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. I don't think this subject has received the coverage to warrant its own article. Orser67 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure nonsense, this state never existed and no control was ever formed. 60 or so people could walk into any government building and declare that they have just formed the new state of Flowersandrosesland but without any actual control it is baseless and just as in this case would most likely get you arrested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Republic has been proclaimed. Ukrainian junta managed to overtake the building, which differs it from the much more vital Donetsk republic, but the declaration has been made [28] Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

That source is from yesterday, since then the building was stormed and every single person there arrested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I said. Ukrainian junta managed to overtake the building - that refers to the Maidan Kiev-loyal stormtroopers that arrested the revolutionaries. This is what they can't do in Donetsk, but we have to wait and see how the civil war develops. The declaration still stands, as expressing the will of the people, loyal to the still legal president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, whose illegal disposal lead directly to the ongoing dissolution of Ukraine. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Can you please tone down the anti-Ukraine rhetoric? There are always two sides to a story (WP:NPOV). Anyways without control over anything an article about a state that does not exist physically is nothing more than wishful thinking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is not a republic proclaimed by anyone with authority or anyone in de facto control, just a small group of hoodlums. If a 20 drunkards in Hull proclaim People's Republic of Yorkshire tomorrow, should we make an article on that as well? All these weird "republic" articles being created each day can and should be dealt with under the existing articles on the crisis in Ukraine.Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would Putin risk World War III to save People's Republic of Yorkshire? Reliable Western sources are claiming that Putin is at this very moment planning to "invade" Ukraine and bring "peacekeeping" forces in to prop up these republics. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Just as with Donetsk People's Republic, this is WP:UNDUE to the extreme. A few activists making random proclamations that they can't carry out doesn't warrant an article, and can be covered in the existing 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine article. I also recommend salting this title, to avoid the random creation of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 22:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I support a "speedy delete" but amalgamating all these articles on separatist republics into one article dealing with the unilateral declarations of independence in the three regions could be a way to deal with the issue. Dapiks (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, delete, delete: Every activist-occupied building in Eastern Ukraine does not constitute a republic. No More 18 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you voting 3 times? :) Dapiks (talk)

Merge or delete Clearly this "republic" is very similar to the so-called Donetsk People's Republic, which both had no control of anything besides a building, and it is very likely that Ukraine will stay the way it is now (without Crimea), and not splinter into any other countries. Mainland Ukraine favors keeping the union. I suggest that this article and the Donetsk "republic" be merged into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. Viller the Great (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is ridiculous to start articles just because an angry mob declared a 'republic' from the window of the local executive power building. Besides, the Ukrainian government has restored control over the building. Parishan (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There were alot of republics in the Russian Revolution and Civil War that were small, like these modern Peoples Republic of Kharkiv and Peoples Republic of Odonetsk, with limited or no recognition, and/or shortly lived, yet they have Wikipedia articles. That sets a precedence. Bolegash (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia does not decide what to keep or delete based on precedent, as you will see in this essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secondly, even if we did decide based on precedent, this would not apply. No territory is controlled. A few random guys declaring a republic does not make the subject notable. It has not widely been reported in reliable sources and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we don't whether it will ever have significance or not. RGloucester — ☎ 14:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. An alike Sealand experiment maybe but this People's Republic doesn't control outside of the occupied building. --Taichi (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A better merge target would be Donetsk People's Republic. As for Sealand, the the Kyiv government militarily occupies the central administrative building, but it seems the city itself is is in the hands of separatists (...or Yanukovych loyalists or what ever you want to call them). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Kharkov People's Republic. All the arguments seem to be based on the claim, that "occupying a building does not constitute a republic." Very true, but the occupation is not the reason that this entity exists. It is because Ukraine has become a failed state that cannot control its territories, neither in the east nor west. If you want to base your !vote on the claim that the republic does not exist, then you better show evidence that the Kyiv government actually controls Kharkiv. Who do the local police obey? Separatist or Kyiv? The administration building itself has been occupied by some troops from Vinnitsa (some say "Blackwater"), but their movements and influence in the city seem to be very limited. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – The topic may not be notable as an unrecognized state but it is notable as a rebellion. (I have now included the article in Category:Rebellions in Ukraine.) Even if the rebellion came to nothing and everyone involved was locked up for life, we should still have an article on the Kharkiv 70 or whatever these political prisoners were called. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is very early stuff, only the Donetsk People's Republic is the significant event. The separatists still dominate the buildings of the Donetsk oblast in Donetsk. Doncsecz^talk 10:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any material on this incident can be covered in an article on Russian nationalist terrorism in Ukraine or something. Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep article until the situation is proven false (or not). The Principality of Sealand was formed illegally, is located in a smaller area (a sea platform), and is "inhabited" by less than 50 persons. Sealand is unrecognized by any countries in the world. Yet there is an article in wikipedia. Do you want to delete it as well? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sealand is a Micronation this proclaimed so called republic is not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from the deletion discussion for another one of these so-called republics) - Firstly, lets start with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't matter what else exists. Secondly, your comparison is moot. The difference with regard to Sealand, and any other small little republics that may have article for whatever reason, is that, for those, we have historical distance. For those, there has been coverage in reliable third party scholarly sources, that establish that events were notable in the context of history. We do not have that distance here, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we have no right to 'determine' the future before it has happened. As it stands now, an independent article for this supposed entity is WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per No More 18. Northern Antarctica (T • ₵) 14:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is this the birth of a real republic or a joke in the context of Ucranian turmoil? Who cares. That is something that has to be debated as a matter of content. What matters is that it is covered by multiple sources, and as such it is notable, apparently. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS, since the building was retaken there has been no new news media about this: [ https://www.google.com/#q=Kharkiv+People's+Republic&tbm=nws]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article is a joke right? If there is anything that needs to be said, it can be said in the relevant main article on Russian protests in Ukraine. Not worthy of its own article, especially since this will be moot within a week and no one will even remember what it was all about. § DDima 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether you like it or not, and whether it is recognized by the international powers is irrelevant. It is a symbol of Ukraine demise and final destruction, like the former Yugoslavia. Soon it will fracture in smaller entities, as the central power in Kiev is too weak. It is too late already. The protesters in Kiev destroyed their own country. Forever. It is sad, but it is true. Until the crisis is resolved, I think this event is notable enough to keep it in an article. Perhaps it will need to be merged later.Canadianking123 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)(blocked sock account)- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another single purpose account soapboxing? Oh jeez ("It is a symbol of Ukraine demise and final destruction") --Львівське (говорити) 18:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Lvivske, I agree. Theres too many of these accounts lately, it seems real fishy to me. § DDima 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also exactly the opposite. People who just want to delete articles that they don't like. "This is nonsense, should be deleted", "This is a joke right? speedy delete". WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. Also, anyone who participates in AfDs should get automatically checkusered.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser is not for fishing - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But in some cases it should be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many [[ |short-lived states]] have articles. Why not this one? It seems very notable for the Ukrainian crisis. [Soffredo] 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It never had a state or control over anything other than a building. This is WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you dont know the Principality of Sealand...--HC PUNXKID 14:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the Principality of Sealand is a Micronation which has gathered sources over a period of at least a few months, this here is a republic claimed within the lobby of a building which ended after police arrested all involved, news coverage ended on April 8 - 9th or so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep This is part of major development, that will probably end up by either federalisaton of Ukraine, or by eastern Ukraine breaking away as more and more of the regions break away. In any case, this is a significant interim phase; Ukrainian editors try to change reality that they do not like by deleting this article. Membrane-biologist (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Can you please read WP:CRYSTAL? Wikipedia does not make predictions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:HOAX. The ground floor lobby of the Regional Administration Building was briefly occupied by drunken hooligans who apparently claimed a "People's Republic" as a joke, but were subsequently arrested by police a few hours later and the building cleared. --Nug (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per several reasons stated above, in contrast with the ridiculization efforts by some Ukrainian nationalist editors and others who want to impose their POV on all the articles related to the Maidan events.--HC PUNXKID 14:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HCP do you see anything new in the news that mention the Kharkov People's Republic? This fails WP:N an I point to WP:NOTNEWS here. A group of people occupied the lobby of a building declared a republic and were soon taken out by the police. The arguments which you are pointing too above mostly say "What about article x?" a poor excuse for a reason to keep during a deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2014

Poor or not, the fact is that in WP articles about proclaimed states that lasted less than 24 hours exist, some of them with less historical significance than this one. So removing this one while maintaining the others would be a crystal-clear cas of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and POV-driven double standards.--HC PUNXKID 11:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether we like it or not this was a proclaimed republic of 1 day. And an article for this republic is perhaps not needed in the sense that it made any big impact but it still was a republic for 1 day and it was not wrong to create the article or against Wikipedia guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article does go against Wikipedia guidelines, it fails WP:N per WP:LASTING, and WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The process similar to the present civil strife in Ukraine happened in Yugoslavia that fell apart in 1990s, and the right of self-determination of people prevailed. Also, Republic of Prekmurje existed for only 6 days, almost 100 years ago, and we have article with this title. Should not be removed OR renamed. Slovinan (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per the reasons stated above. Regardless of the legitimacy of the "entity", reliable sources confirm its existence & notability, especially in the context of recent events.--Therexbanner (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt exist, it never existed, you're thinking of Donetsk.--Львівське (говорити) 01:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, has numerous reliable sources. Also a case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. If the same thing happened in USA or UK, no one would dispute such an article LordFixit (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Blocked sock account - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I would dispute such an article, especially considering we have an article that already covers the situation adequately: 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. This is nothing more than a WP:POVFORK. RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so it has reliable sources what is your point? Not everything that has reliable sources passes WP:GNG, look up "Kharkiv People's Republic" do you see any new sources reporting on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it happened in the United States, we'd have something like 2014 invasion of the Kansas Statehouse if it were an isolated incident, or Kansas seccession movement#2014 occupation of the Statehouse if it were part of a larger action. --Carnildo (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Protestors occupied a government building for a single day before being evicted. Claiming this counts as a country is an absolute farce. As the article on the 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine already covers the occupation of the building, a merge is not necessary.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small group of militants occupying oblast administration building for few hours is not worthy of a separate article, even if those militants make hilarious proclamations about creating new country. Relevant stuff seems to be already in 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine anyway.--Staberinde (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Regardless on whether this entity is successful the fact remains that it does exist and there are publications that refer to the 'Kharov People's Republic' and therefore it does conform to Wikipedia rules re WP:N. Comment there seem to be a lot of Ukrainians on this discussion with a predisposition to removing anything that does not conform to the political adgenda that they are trying to pedal. Wikipedia is not a soapbox ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the fact remains that it does exist " - no, it does not. Can we at least be honest and informed here and not spout lies? People in the lobby of a building declared sme stuff, but it does not "exist" nor did it ever. Donetsk is the only example thus far with any credibility.--Львівське (говорити) 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently it's not notable, it's similar to WP:ONEEVENT. And it certainly has near-zero WP:PERSISTENCE. --Amakuha 14:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a notable event according to every future history book - a group of people organize and start a fight for independence. It's not just an "idea" but in a way a fact (not as much if the state will survive or not, but that such an attempt was made). How come it's ok to have an article about the Ukrainian People's Republic, but not about that state? Let's be neutral and judge events by their notability rather by which side are you on. Ukraine gained independence from the USSR by "a bunch of people making a declaration", Ireland gained independence by "a bunch of separatists (according to the UK)" Who started a war based on their right for self determination. It's the same story with that state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't justify keeping articles just by what future source could potentially say about them, that is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, all of the states you listed were actual functional states with a centralized government, international recognition and control over their territories. This is absolutely not the case for Kharkiv, as this "nation" was just an RSA building taken over for a day by pro-Russian protestors (and who were then promptly expelled by the Ukrainian government). Calling this a state is beyond absurd. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as these events are going on for the past week or so, with no sign of stopping. 58.168.49.9 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)(IP has made few or no edits outside of this AfD) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Kharkiv has been calm since 13 April, according to the OSCE. The events currently happening are in Donetsk Oblast, not Kharkiv. Please don't conflate events. RGloucester — ☎ 14:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for events made up while you're standing in the lobby of a regional government building one day. If an entity bearing this name manages at some point to take control of something for more than a couple of hours, then sure, have an article. But as it is, it's just giving a fizzled protest more prominence than it deserves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, Just like Cyprus Turks have formed their illegitimate "state", Khrakov republic is another example of such self-proclaimed republic. It is notable and has reliable sources. The ongoing crisis is top news in the past weeks. Nemboysha (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again this argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not everything that has ever existed is notable for Wikipedia, there is no lasting coverage here other than a splash in the news which is why we have the guideline WP:NOTNEWS. In fact according to this source: [29] there has been no protesters in front of the building since April 13th and news coverage pretty much stopped after all the people inside the lobby were arrested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us discuss one more week, may be IRL situation could become more clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:UNDUE that this should have its own article. This material in this article would more aptly be presented in as a couple sentences in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very short lived, but notable entity that really existed and now it's historical. Meets WP:GNG and so far (in aspects relevant to this discussion) it only differs from Donetsk People's Republic in its longevity and success. Feon {^t/_c} 14:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It existed very briefly, and is already covered in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. There is no need for an individual article, which would be WP:UNDUE. Saying it only differs from the Donetsk Republic on 'longevity and success' is exactly the point. There has been no continuing coverage of the Kharkiv Republic (as it ceased to exist), and we are WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound WP:OTHERSTUFF-ish, but we have a plenty of articles about entities that existed for a day or so (little longevity) and were crushed afterwards (little or no success). Longevity and success are not the point, historical relevance is the point. Feon {^t/_c} 16:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of these states had a centralized government, control over their territory and some level of international recognition. I agree that only existing for a few days is not grounds for deletion if (and this is a very important "if") notability requirements are met. This so-called republic does not meet those requirements. The fact that a legitimate state that only existed for a few days deserves an article does not mean that we should be creating articles to cover every single time in human history someone proclaimed that their tiny patch of land was a state. If this were a legitimate argument, we would be flooded in articles about completely non-notable micronations.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E, it existed only briefly and it was not sufficiently significant to warrant its own article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As short-lived states go, this one appears to have been especially so. Total population: maybe 70. Area controlled: the lobby of one building. Lifespan: a few hours. Impact after it vanished: none. A short-lived state that vanishes from public consciousness shortly after it vanishes from the world doesn't strike me as being notable enough for an article. --Carnildo (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Slovenia and Croatia proclaimed independence in 1991; after short war in Slovenia, SFRY army overtook border posts, similarly like in Khrakov now. However, only after political Brioni decision was the real process of independence (ending in recognition almost a year after the proclamation) did the process end. So, this republic proclamatio is an important event, and deserves an article, whatever happens with Ukraine in the future. Also, it is wrong to call it "dissolved" since crisis in Ukraine is not yet solved (just like crisis in Yugoslavia did not end after disarming Slovenian militia). LoncarLoncici (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Similar precedents such South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and their proclamation of independence has shown its too early to wave it away.121.213.171.3 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC))(IP has made few or no edits outside of this AfD) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge - Holy WP:AADDs on both sides. The question of whether this is a legitimate republic, whether it's a legitimate anything, whether it's nonsense or a publicity stunt, whether it gives them credibility or not, etc. -- none of that matters for the purposes of Wikipedia, which considers notable that which has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The briefest of searches returned more than enough to render notability uncontroversial (well, should I suppose). The other question is whether it merits a stand-alone article vs. merging into the unrest article. To me this has received so much coverage on its own up to the present that a stand-alone article seems warranted. Unproven lasting effects don't automatically mean non-notable. If we start thinking about what the existence of a Wikipedia article means in the grand sociopolitical scheme of things, Wikipedia will quickly fall apart. [Update: Changed from keep to weak keep or merge based on concentration of reporting. Though I do think it's too early to delete based on no lasting significance, merging for now is a reasonable compromise.] --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This so-called republic consisted of around 70 protestors that occupied an RSA building for 24 hours before being removed by government officials and the only coverage it got was a few days of news coverage. I understand that we normally shouldn't delete current events articles due to lack of demonstrated impact, but its a decision I support here. The "republic" was created less than two weeks ago, yet it has completely fallen out of the news. There is no reason to believe that this will have a lasting impact, and if it were to become notable, we could just split off the section on Khariv in the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (which already covers the so-called republic in much greater detail than this article does). As the article is already covered in the article I listed, a delete should be justified.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that this has particular 'Kharkiv People's Republic' has not received 'so much coverage'. People seem to be confusing the events in Donetsk, with regard to the Donetsk People's Republic, with Kharkiv. Nothing has happened in Kharkiv. There haven't been protests there since April 13, according to the OSCE. The 'Republic' doesn't exist. RGloucester — ☎ 04:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ I re-iterate my comments above. It is irrelevant whether or not this declared state still exists. The fact is that it did exist for a period of time - whether recognized or not - and there are legitimate sources cited in the article that prove its Notability. There is no question that this article should be kept, just as the Donetsk People's Republic page has had its AFD discussion resolved as a keep. ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 22:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user has already voted keep earlier in the discussion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:19, 23 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 snow close. We can't judge on this possibly getting picked up in the far future- we need to establish notability in the here and now. No prejudice against it being created when it releases and gets coverage, but it should not be created prior to it getting coverage in RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser or Greater Extinctions[edit]

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

This article is about a YouTube "television" series being created by the article's editor and his stepfather. He has removed the CSD tag. This is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia: totally non-notable. PamD 07:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Upcoming" and "in the works" can hardly be notable. Promotional. --Dmol (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's Elijah and it's not for YouTube I'm not lying it is really for television in the far future. It's my creative idea for some TV channel and not for YouTube trust me Pamd it's not for online it's for TV and I always dreamed of doing this and now I want to share my TV creativity for the world so they know about my TV series to, please do not delete it and sorry about the bad texting to you yesterday. Elijah Friesen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalarmageddon (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting non-notable private projects. Stalwart111 12:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a pretty clear example of promotion to me. NickCT (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this article is premature and self-promotional. On the other hand, "don't bite the newbies" is a thought for the newbie here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move? If the project discussed in the article should advance, there is some chance that it may someday be notable. Would it be appropriate to move the article into user space as a subpage, perhaps as a userspace draft, a user-specific draft, or as userspace notes? 50.181.30.121 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that might still breach WP:NOTWEBHOST. Is the any realistic prospect this will become notable in the future? Stalwart111 22:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The “time-to-notability” is clearly measured in years, not months. As for “likelihood-of-notability”, I have my own POV, but no professional qualifications whatsoever to support it. Would it do harm to the image or function of Wikipedia to let an enthusiastic new editor keep this in draft or sandbox status for a while? 50.181.30.121 (talk) 02:35, 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. There does not seem to be any material suitable for a transwiki (i.e., clear alternate definitions with quotations). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negligible[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article does not include any information beyond an extended dictionary definition, and includes no references (except to a dictionary... which is my point). KDS4444^Talk 06:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. Any future encyclopedic article should be called "negligibility" and should be thoroughly referenced to sources devoting significant coverage to the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not fit for an encyclopedic entry. Harsh (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wow. Rarely has so much been written with such negligible effect. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basic dictionary definition. There isn't much to say about this word, and Wiktionary can handle it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Some of the information could be carried over to the wiktionary article on negligible, which is kind of underdeveloped ([30]). If there is any reason preventing a transwiki, count this as a delete vote. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:24, 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 Redirect to Tip of the tongue. Target can be discussed on talk page, if so desired. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lethologica[edit]

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

The whole of this article appears to be a fabrication. Lethologica is neither a term of art in the field of psychology, nor is it a word otherwise in use in English. No reference to this term can be found in PsychInfo, PubMed, ScopeMed, or in other relevant resources, and this is at odds with the article's specific and general claims about the nature and treatment of this condition. The initial article was created by a registered user who did not make any other contributions for six years, and the article was then embellished by various unregistered users. It appears to be a prank article. Ordinary Person (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aphasia, by far the most common term. I did find a couple of usages of the term "lethologica" in sources about 60 to 70 years ago, so I don't think that the article is a complete prank. It is just an obscure, obsolete term best dealt with by a redirect. Personal disclosure: I have a sister who recovered, slowly, from aphasia after a brain aneurysm. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cullen328: the term is used here and there, but unless some reliable source is identified that substantively differentiates "lethologica" from aphasia, redirect is what's called for. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tip of the tongue, where it is mentioned. A simple WP:BEFORE type of search shows that this is a real word and is in medical dictionaries [31] and psychology dictionaries [32]. There are also a few paragraphs about it in the Chicago Tribune and about 40 hits in GScholar, so obviously not a prank, but there may be original research or synthesis. While there are sources, I have not found any in-depth sources. Lethologica is an old name for the Tip of the tongue phenomenon. Cullen is correct that it is a type of aphasia, but Tip of the tongue seems the more precise target. --Mark viking (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard of this word many years ago, but ironically couldn't exactly remember it, so used wikipedia to look it up. I don't know if it is an old fashioned term, but can personally confirm the condition is genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunt Eller (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Zeigler[edit]

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

This article is one big self-promotion, almost entirely edited by a single author, and seems to be nothing more than a promotional page. The subject asserts no significance, and the content is largely non-significant. This has been CSD'd before and denied with the administrator stating "terrible article, but there is a claim of importance and it's not irredeemable. plus, there are sources. take it to AfD if you like". Since then, no worthy changes have been made to make the article better, only the same author adding more promotional material. Further, the author has taken the page and copy-pasted the content onto "zeiglerstory.com" (author's name still intact as logged in), as further proof that this is nothing more than self-promotion with no signifigance. More, the primary author Zeiglereldercare, has been blocked as promotional. According to a blog post attributed to the subject himself, published less than 2 weeks ago, "Jim Zeigler, a candidate for Alabama State Auditor, is using Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to reach voters. Zeigler registered the domain name ZeiglerStory.com and linked it to the lengthy Wikipedia article detailing his life." Open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicalrevision. (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some pretty clear WP:AUTOBIO, WP:NOTPROMOTION issues here. Lots of low quality sources covering this guy, but I'm struggling to come up with any mainstream coverage. NickCT (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is problematic for all the reasons cited above. However, as a former elected member of the Alabama Public Service Commission, a statewide elected office of considerable significance, Zeigler passes WP:POLITICIAN #1; see also [33] and the hundreds of Google results from the search string <zeigler alabama site:google.com/newspapers> . Stubbing or WP:TNT might be remedies of choice here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Arxiloxos is probably right about re "WP:POLITICIAN #1". Frankly, I'm not sure I really like that rule. It seems that it would potentially capture all sorts of folks who were in fact not notable. Ah well..... maybe WP:TNT is the answer. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This may be the best course of action. However, it is worth noting that the position held by this politician has no other biographies. BigDwiki (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There seem to be several former commissioners with wiki pages, listed on Alabama Public Service Commission (which is, btw, a plausible redirect if this page is deemed unmaintainable & deleted).Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As submitter. BigDwiki (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think vandalism/COI is a major problem here (as I've suggested at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jim Zeigler). I did some cleanup, deleting a bunch of the cruft. I agree that he passes #1 of WP:Politician. Also his lawsuit got a 1-page mention in a book. So, for me, he just passes the bar for notability. Further editing/improvement is needed, for sure (to start, please can somebody fix my <ref> naming/grouping errors?). (For more references, the online version of the newspaper would be a start Al.com) Semi-protection until November would be advisable (since I assume this is mostly election-related vandalism). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The many edits we've made to this article over the years to try to bring it into compliance have been continuously stifled with the same promotion. It is high time to just delete. 209.105.231.36 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although at first glance, he seems to meet criterion no. 1 of WP:POLITICIAN, that guideline (and it is only a guideline, really a gloss on WP:GNG) seems to contemplate statewide unitary offices, where authority is vested in an individual, not shared as part of a multi-member agency such as the commission here; the obvious exception being state legislatures or state supreme (and maybe appellate) courts. A spot-check of other commissioners noted in Alabama Public Service Commission who have articles seems to indicate that all have some substantial independent basis for notability, beyond being a commission member. For examples, Susan Parker went on to become state auditor (a unitary office); B. B. Comer and Gordon Persons went on to become governor of the state; Jim Folsom, Jr. went on to become lieutenant governor. There don't appear to be any other members of this commission who have articles where the sole basis of their notability is their membership in the commission. TJRC (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't add much not already said as arguments to delete, as they were all well expressed and rooted in policy and guidelines. Being a member of a commission in of itself does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY or even WP:POLITICIAN. And the promotional and COI aspects have poisoned it. — Becksguy (talk) 23:52, 1 May 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) 06:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Safian[edit]

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

Not seeing how this person is noteworthy. No sources about the subject, just his organization. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Associate directors do not get notability from organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 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. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 05:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of taglines in the Jaws franchise[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a list or repositories of loosely associated topics. reddogsix (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dmol (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go in the Wikipedia. There's only one that has any staying power. The rest are trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Important taglines cited in reliable sources belong in the articles on the individual films. But no reason to have this any more than list of brands of hot dogs advertised at Jaws screenings. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since taglines are promotional and numerous, an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should focus on those that have been independently covered by reliable sources. Even with that being the case, the taglines are not sufficient for their own list. The most noteworthy ones can be mentioned at the franchise articles. List of taglines in the Alien franchise and List of taglines in the Predator franchise should be deleted as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ~~utter crap~~ not really encyclopedic, IMDB usually have quotes so that's one problem solved and some kb's saved. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to call it "utter crap". I'm sure the editor who made the list means well. It is just not content that suits this encyclopedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah perhaps I was alittle harsh there, I'm sure the editor did mean well. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly sourced attempt to get around WP:IINFO. Whatever can be properly sourced as important to the plots can be included in the parent articles following instructions of WP:TRIVIA. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too trivial and indiscriminate to catalog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Moffat[edit]

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

Minor actor, not notable, Wiki page is a puff piece. Popcornduff (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About 80 percent of the article is about her relatives. No personal claim to fame. Minor character. I suspect the subject is contributing to the article, as half the editors in the history only edit this article.--Dmol (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable actress. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 07:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ivan Moffat, which already mentions her, and someone can add a sentence or 2 about her there if they like. Fails WP:NACTOR: her biggest role was in Skins, and even that wasn't as a main character. An alternative redirect would be to Skins (UK TV series). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG fails, although there are a lot of references. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 15:26, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Bauer (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The number of films a porn actor stars in is specifically excluded from notability grounds.

Conflict of interest, as much of the article has been edited by the subject.

Large list of nominations, but no significant awards. Of the awards, Euro X doesn't seem to rate very highly, and a search for "Venus Paris Award" only has one result – this article.

No mainstream references or mentions, and four out of the six references are just for nominations and not awards. The other two refs are for the industry's website.

Not a member the AVN Hall of Fame, nor the XRCO Hall of Fame. Dmol (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a BLP requires better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable actor - Fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 07:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Harsh (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 22 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.

[1] ttp://www.elvis.com.au/presley/interview_with_vernon_presley_1978.shtml#sthash.hJB21BgJ.dpbs

[1]