Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 April	3 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 Delete. This was never transcluded to a log page, so it was never closed, but the article was deleted later anyway. Technically, this AfD has still been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickup 101[edit]

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

Delete The article is poorly sourced, promotional and, in my opinion, does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The fact that the page was already nominated for deletion in the past, and coupled with the fact that no significant edits were made, indicate that this page should be deleted. M.Jormungand (talk) 11:31, 2 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 deleted by User:Jinian per CSD A7, "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event" and CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://milkweed.org/about-us/contact-info/daniel-slager/ (foundational co...". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Slager[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG promotional puff piece by conflict of interest editors. Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Article looks to be the work of a COI editor, but more importantly while I see a number of sources about Mr. Slager, all of them are connected to Milkweed Editions. That, in combination with the COI issue, makes me think that while he is notable, a separate article (apart from the publisher's article) isn't justified. Alternative solution: delete without prejudice to being recreate by a user without a COI and who will use more and diverse sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Stone[edit]

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

No particular evidence of notability except a few mentions in the media. Article created by PR agent, who also removed prod the without a reason. Number 5 7 20:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are some TV news segment appearances (ABC and CNBC, most notably), but I'm not convinced that the subject meets the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria at this time. Gong show 20:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Just not seeing enough to pass GNG. Possible COI issue doesn't help, but isn't a necessary consideration [for me, anyway] in this case. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. One time mention is NOT significant coverage, as such abc news, reuters. Fails WP:NJOUNRANLIST, WP:BIO, GNG, all. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:59, 9 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 deleted under CSD A1. Xoloz (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa 15[edit]

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

Remove WP:TOOSOON. Ging287 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1, A7 - No context. Whole content of article at the moment is "Fifa 15 is the latest edition of FIFA. It will be released on the 28th September 2014." FIFA is an organization. What is the latest edition of an organization? Maybe a video game? Released by who for what platform? What source offers that date? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retract Nomination. I'd like to retract this nomination due to WP:SNOW. It qualifies for speedy deletion, and it was a mistake to put it in AfD. Ging287 (talk) 21:24, 2 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 Boards of Canada. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closes Vol. 1[edit]

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

The existence of the album is not verifiable WP:VERIFY –Cosmopolitan (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I am able to find are discussions on fan forums and (presumably) fake torrents. Whether or not this release exists, there just does not appear to be coverage in reliable sources from which to justify an article; i.e., subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 19:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This recording has a bit of mythology around it, but it did indeed exist. (At least, if we are to believe an old version of the official website). There are a whole lot of ghits I don't have time to go through at the moment, but this album has been the subject of enough speculation that it may indeed be dominated by fan talk rather than reliable sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Boards of Canada, since this album title is a plausible search term. As others have stated, there's quite a bit of mythology around this album, so it seems logical that people might want to search Wikipedia to find information on it. That said, very little information actually exists, so it's very existence is questionable, and there has certainly not been any coverage in reliable sources that would warrant a full-blown article here. It's also worth mentioning that according to two non-RS ([1] & [2]) the album was repressed as a CD in 1997, though there doesn't appear to be any real evidence of that either. If there is anything verifiable that can be constructed regarding Closes Vol. 1 then it should be merged into the "Early years (1986–1994)" section of the band's article. — sparklism ^hey! 08:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Gary Jones[edit]

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

Can't find sources through Google to support notability of this person under WP:BIO or WP:GNG. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also, the page reads like a resume/self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to note the apparent conflict of interest, based on the name of the creating user. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another lawyer, this time with a published book. Spammy, but with no real indications of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Promotional article created by a WP:SPA Jonesandassociates fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and created by a SPA with a COI. Northern Antarctica ₵ 01:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Theistic science. Consensus to redirect as this is more essay than encyclopedic article D P 18:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religious explanations of gravity[edit]

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

This isn't an article, it is three isolated comments spread out over a period of two hundred and thirty years strung together on a coat rack. It seems an attempt to synthesize these three quotes into an encyclopedic article on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Essay constructed of original (and dubious) research. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete or redirect to ~~Intelligent falling~~ history of gravitational theory. It seems like there's potential for developing the idea by looking at some older sources, but I'm not seeing quite enough in my search and the current version doesn't sufficiently establish the notability of the general subject. It furthermore doesn't seem to touch on any religious perspectives other than Christianity, and a good portion of sources on the latter seem to be satirical. If anyone's interested to try, here are some relatively recent sources (none are stellar, though): --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~: I think this can be properly developed, Jean Buridan's celestial impetus for example.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two comments are capable of satisfying GNG and the length of time between them is not necessarily relevant. Mere juxtaposition of two quotes that are obviously about the same subject is not a synthesis. James500 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"List of religious explanations of gravity" would work for me.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point in mentioning the time frame is that this is not really a topic that has been the subject of serious discourse amongst religious scholars. Although Newton did write nearly as much about religion as he did about science, he was not and is not considered particularly relevant in that field. It is also worth noting that in his day it would have been extremely dangerous to express any opinion that seemed to question the existence of the Christian God. The Darwin comment is just an offhand comparison to his own field of study, he was neither a religious scholar nor a physicist. The last comment is from someone I have never heard of (and that we do not have an article on) who apparently voiced his opinion on the subject in a book he wrote in 1925. Three comments, one of which is not actually a religious explanation of gravity at all, none of them from persons eminent in the field of religious scholarship, does not seem at all sufficient for us to base an encyclopedia article on. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete: You're right, Buridan would be anachronistic anyway.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact we don't have an article on someone seems to prove nothing since we can't even manage to match basic works of biography such as the ODNB, our coverage of biography is skewered towards recent popular culture and we have some truly stunning omissions. James500 (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to theistic science, which seems to have broader coverage of the general idea of religious explanations of scientific concepts. There just isn't enough here to justify a full article. Orser67 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid target, at least not as far as the three quotations in the article are concerned. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (history intact) to Theistic science. The material itself looks reasonable to be covered somewhere, Theistic science looks good, but as a topic it is not the subject of independent coverage and is not a suitable stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The meagre start is not a reason to delete because it is explicit policy that "one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." There is no synthetic proposition and juxtaposition is not synthesis. There is plenty more to be said about the topic as it is discussed extensively in sources such as God and Nature which states, "In the decades after Newton's Principia, theologians and religious popularizers latched onto the grace of gravity as a valuable weapon in the ongoing fight against atheism." Even now, people talk of the God particle. If we were to merge then the most appropriate target would be history of gravitational theory in which the ideas of theologians such as Thomas Aquinas belong. See The Grip of Gravity: The Quest to Understand the Laws of Motion and Gravitation for a good book-length treatment of this. Andrew (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a synthesis of three primary sources, two of which are simply talking about natural law being providential and the third being pretty much opaque in its lack of context. I would not interpret any of the three as a "religious explanation of gravity" but in any case no authoritative interpreter has been cited at all. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a historian of scientific thought would deem the whole notion an invalid concept. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think merge/redirect to history of gravitational theory makes sense.

That it's synthesis in the way WP:NOR defines it isn't so clear [to me], but it's certainly a notability issue. (Notability concerns the subject of the article, so "religious explanations of gravity," not the individual examples an editor brought together.) It sounds like Andrew Davidson knows of such sources, but taking God and Nature for granted, that's still only one. Also, I fail to see any connection at all to the God particle. I'm also not sure (as a separate question) why it's "religious" and not "Christian?" Either "religious" or "Christian" makes it sound like these are views commonly held by adherents broadly rather than certain individuals. Even if we decide this subject is notable, that doesn't necessarily mean it should have its own article apart from history of gravitational theory. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newton is at the heart of this topic because of his law of universal gravitation. He was a Christian and had quite significant views about the part that God played in this. There are numerous sources which discuss the matter in detail. See, for more examples, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives or “Pray Do Not Ascribe That Notion to Me”: God and Newton’s Gravity. Andrew (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in all of this is that any Christian holds that the natural order as a whole is providential. It's not specifically something about gravity. I'm not adverse to talking about the connection between Newton's religious views and his scientific endeavours, but there are other places for that, and this topic isn't a real topic. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity was an especially difficult phenomenon to understand because, as Newton explained, it involves action-at-a-distance. The sources I have cited indicate that Newton thought that this mysterious force was not an inherent property of matter but was the active agency of God, keeping the planets in their courses. As cited above, this was seen as evidence for the existence of God and so became a commonplace debating point. The debate has moved on now that we have more modern theories such as the Higgs field but notability does not expire as we document the history of the matter. Andrew (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LitPAC[edit]

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

I deprodded this page, and in fairness, I should take it to Afd myself because it really does seem to be a) defunct (not a reason to delete) and b) lacking in sufficient coverage or broader impact that would suggest that it ever met our notability requirements for organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my PROD rationale. Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Lefebure[edit]

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

This person lacks of any notability beyond trying to market a pseudoscientific product and using wikipedia to promote it. None of the problems detected since 2009 have been solved and it doesn't look like they are going to be solved ever. Fjsalguero (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable practicioner of fringe science. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I found some fringe books discussing him: [3] [4] [5] [6]. However the coverage is brief and I could not find any mainstream sources to balance these and provide a neutral point of view on the subject. I don't think that's good enough. On the other hand, the nominator's statement is problematic and fails to assume good faith: how could someone dead since 1988 be trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I have the same question as David... --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: David and Randy, you are right. My statement may have been a bit too harsh. Anyway, as it usually happens with pseudoscience, the death of the first promoter doesn't mean the end of the bussiness.--Fjsalguero (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinpathogen[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG and WP:ORG SarahStierch (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. It also seems to be thinly veiled WP:PROMO. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 10:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article itself fails to explain why this company may be considered notable. I did a google search and couldn't find anything other than the company's own website and press releases. No reliable thrid party sources. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Noe[edit]

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

WP:Autobiography. As for notability, I don't find anything in the way of substantive discussion of him in independent reliable sources, and all the references he provided (a) are directly tied to him, (b) are non-existent (in a couple of cases), (c) contain no mention of him, or (d) do no more than identify him as the author of a cited article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Fjsalguero (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, autobiography of nonnotable journalist. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney[edit]

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

Article has been completely unsourced for almost two years and violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a lot of people were around when Toon Disney was around. People need to know what shows had aired on the channel. Also the only thing that was unsourced was the Nickelodeon part. This list may not be important to other users, but it is to me. I say we keep this list and keep on encouraging users to find sources. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A couple could be added on the main article ....., And we've encouraged users to had sources since 8 October 2005‎ and from I can see not one reference is there.... and Lastly we go by the references and notability, Not "importance to everyone" ... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried adding source to the article? - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No because I don't generally edit Disney related articles......-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just because you never tried adding source to it and no one else has, doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is very difficult to find source for the shows that aired on the channel, especially at times like this. All the other lists are having the same problem as well. The other problem this list had was that lots of users been adding shows that never really aired on the channel at all. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to find source for the shows that aired on the channel - So therefore this list shouldn't be a standalone article, Most lists are sourced & If not they usually end up here .... You might want to read WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Verifiability. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know the guidelines. The only thing I found that was unsourced on this list was the Nickelodeon part which I successfully removed yesterday. After all, the previous template did say to remove the template onced the issue was fixed and I thought I was doing the right thing by doing it. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most prominent shows network aired can be listed in the body of the TD article; the network never originated one single show created for them especially (the Jetix shows were usually originated on a Canadian network) and five years out this is outdated and not needed. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep Now well-sourced; thank you AngusWoof for doing what who knows how many crufters can't; simply adding sources (I just don't have the time these days to go through and source everything). Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All fancruft, All unsourced .... and it fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as now perfectly sourced thanks to AngusWOOF & there hard work!- -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to parent article leaving redirect. WP:TOOLONG is probably not an issue here. If not merge, then Keep - WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:TOOLONG may not be an issue with a merge, but WP:V would be. I'm generally not in favor of adding large amounts of unsourced content to articles. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY Secret ^account 15:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a programming channel full of reruns so it should be similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Boomerang which was kept. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of programs broadcast by Boomerang was, at least at the time of the AfD, properly sourced and verifiable. This article is not. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay about questioning the lack of sources to make it historically useful. I just brought up that one to counter the WP:NOTDIRECTORY aspect. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking back on it, that article had 0 sources when the AfD was opened, so the first keep !vote claiming it had sources was incorrect. The only other keep !vote was WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which don't override WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm not sure that that closure should be used as a precedent. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing then how the other list was retained. But it's a similar list of programming for a channel that is mostly syndicated reruns. Toon Disney, however, is the primary carrier along with ABC Family Channel for the Jetix programs in 2004-2009 in the United States. The programming information pertaining to Jetix should be moved to that article, should this one not be needed. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The direction of the Jetix article has been to compact and refine, not add on since it all went away. And as I said earlier TD never originated anything new; even the Jetix content was sourced from Canadian channels, so if anything is added here from Jetix, it needs to be summary-only, not just a random list. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being the rewriter on Jetix, I don't get were you are getting that Jetix content was sourced from Canadian channels. Jetix, as Fox Kids before it, had the Marvel Productions library plus the Saban Entertainment library then sourced various Jetix Animation Concept branded & other shows from various companies (SIP Animation in Paris, BRB Internacional, Sanctuary Visual Entertainment UK). The Canadian Family Channel seem to carry the Jetix programing under the Power Box name from 2004-2006 when it adopted the Jetix name. Spshu (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the programming was Canadian, but the other programs were from the Marvel and Saban libraries which aired on Fox Kids and was never designed to be aired only on TD; the network never aired original programming until the XD conversion, which is the point I'm trying to make. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Toon Disney did air original shows made for the channel like the Disney-produced Power Rangers shows on their Jetix block during when Disney owned the Power Rangers franchise. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since most of the programming was shared with the Disney Channel or with the Jetix programming block/alliance & its Jetix Animation Concepts brand. It is easier to just link to the Jetix article or other sources of shows in the Toon Disney article then just repeating the shows in a new article. So, it would just be a fork. Spshu (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment (leaning keep)~~ changed to keep, see below - I'm here because of a message left on my talk page. I think a key point of the debate here appears to be whether or not this list is verifiable. I am still thinking, as I don't normally do edits in this area, but TV programming lists appear all the time in national newspapers and TV guides. Since Toon Disney is now defunct, it is expectedly difficult to find verification for all the programming. But I think it is certainly possible if one is willing to dig deep enough. If you use the Wayback Machine, you can find snapshots of what Toon Disney's website looked like throughout the years. A few of the TV schedule archives are still viewable (not all of them, most of them look like they're broken). Here's the schedule for the week of June 8, and it appears to list all of Toon Disney's programming for that week. It also appears to verify that many of the 2004 shows in the list aired on Toon Disney. Still thinking... will look harder for sources. It's true that this channel aired a lot of reruns, but that doesn't make the article a content fork. This is a legitimate list of programs that aired on a notable TV channel. Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment. Articles are not suppose to rely on primary sources in this case Toon Disney's website. Spshu (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can use primaries such as press releases, but the secondary guides (yahoo, zap2it, tvguide) not connected to the company would be more useful. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SELFSOURCE, self-published sources can be used for the purposes of verification for certain material. Secondary and tertiary sources would certainly be useful, though. Mz7 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: Sources added Is it that hard to find sources? I just added refs to like 30 Toon Disney in the past hour. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC), updated 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)~~ - see below[reply]

Update: Sources Added - I have added more sources for Toon Disney from news announcements across multiple media platforms and sources different from Toon Disney itself. A few of them are press releases that I am assuming are from Disney, but they are still covered in a manner that disseminates important information regarding the launch date and the premieres of programs on the channel.-AngusWOOF (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources provided by AngusWOOF (thanks!) now unequivocally verify that the shows listed here have aired on Toon Disney. Since the sources indicate that shows on Toon Disney are often discussed in a set with other shows, the list meets the notability guideline for stand-alone lists. Mz7 (talk) 23:45, 4 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 close. Duplicate nomination while first AfD is still open. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Journey ( Hindi)[edit]

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

Remove WP:TOOSOON is entirely relevant. When this movie has achieved sufficient secondary source coverage, and/or when this movie is actually released, an article should be made for it. Ging287 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Ging287 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally did two nominations. Can some admin remove one of them? Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Journey ( Hindi)[edit]

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

Remove WP:TOOSOON is entirely relevant. When this movie has achieved sufficient secondary source coverage, and/or when this movie is actually released, an article should be made for it. Ging287 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally did two nominations. Can an admin remove one of them, please? Ging287 (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd nomination is now closed. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any coverage for this in reliable sources at this point in time, so it's just too soon for an entry. So far all I can see are the routine database entries. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in the reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. Not-to-be-confused with this one, Happy Journey, another movie, seems to pass NF and GNG as well ([7], [8], [9]). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vagabond 7[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a vanity page. No evidence of notability or even existence in Web searches. HOT WUK (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage for this program; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LATI (airline)[edit]

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

Article cites no sources and thus fails WP:V. A Google search failed to yield any RS sources. PROD was removed without any improvement in the article. While I suspect the subject might be notable, Wikipedia does not operate on suspicions. If RS sources are found I will happily withdraw the AfD nom. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All it takes is a search of the airline's actual name as stated in the article. Google Books quickly generates multiple sources: a detailed article about the airline in the Putnam Aeronautical Review [10], discussion in multiple entries of the Historical Dictionary of World War II Intelligence [11], and plenty more [12]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing AfD nom Request Speedy Keep per WP:SK1. Thanks Arxiloxos. I suspected the airline was notable, they almost always are, and was (still am) surprised I found so little in my search. I must have seriously gummed up the search somehow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability. Author would do well to read MezzoMezzo's comments. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are hundreds of articles in the Book stub cat, many of them more obscure than this one; so why is this one being singled out? If the article is too short or missing sources, you could first have asked for them. You didn't even notify the deletion sorting lists about this nomination for deletion. The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination. Not liking what a book says is not really a good reason for voting for its deletion; in fact it is a very bad reason. Book pages are absolutely relevant to Wikipedia. I think a lot of people are voting because they don't like the idea of the book. The problem is not that his works are not notable, the problem is that the author is very controversial. It is a very controversial author, so that even 20 years after the publication, some people still advocate to shun him and censor his writings (I'm not referring to the nominator for deletion).

It is not only the book article which should be expanded and also enlarged with sources, it it the author article itself which has serious NPOV problems, according to this link: [13]

Koenraad Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate were the first publications by a western scholar on the debate, and remain the most well-known ones on the Hindu side. Very prominent politicians like L.K. Advani have cited extensively from his books on Ayodhya debate, as was reported in Indian newspapers. "The book was presented to the world by L.K. Advani and Girilal Jain, and thereby appeared on the cover of most Indian newspapers." Peter Heehs in " Myth, History and Theory" calls Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate the "best-known publications" for the Hindu side. Elst also participated/published his Ayodhya research (some of it in his Ayodhya book) in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. Others who have reviewed his work on this debate are Paul Teunissen and many more. The famous author Kushwant Singh also commented on it. Elst's books on the Ayodhya debate have been reviewed by professor R.N. Rao and Koenraad Elst himself has reviewed books on this topic in academic journals and published articles in journals including the Journal of Indian History and Culture about the Ayodhya debate.

To show how controversial this book is, I can quote from one of the chapters in the book:

This paper was written as an adaptation from an earlier paper, "The Ayodhya debate", published in the conference proceedings of the 1991 International Ramayana Conference, which had taken place in my hometown, Leuven.1 The present version represents my own text prepared for the October 1995 Annual South Asia Conference in Madison, Wisconsin, U. S.A. A few notes have been added. When it was my turn, I was heckled somewhat by the Leftist crowd, especially by a well-known Indo-American Communist academic, who was rolling his eyes like a madman and making obscene gestures until an elderly American lady sitting next to him told him to behave. At the end, Mathew came to collect a copy of my text (the book version, of which I had some author's copies handy), called me a "liar", and told his buddies that they needed to write a scholarly rebuttal. Which is still being awaited today.--Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)— Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Looks like a campaign for the promotion of the author. Nothing significant for inclusion. Fails WP:BKCRIT. Iniciativass (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a campaign against the author because of the author's views. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the notability guidelines? Read WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK. You have posted essential the same wallotext on four AFD`s, none of which actually give a policy based rational to keep a book which is utterly non notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calypsomusic, try WP:REHASH. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is because Darkness Shines nominated half a dozen articles for deletion with the same single argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added some more sources in the article and below, even as Darkness Shines keeps removing all the sources I added from the other book article.

This book contains papers published in journals or presented in academic conferences. I added below also some bits on his other Ayodhya book, as this is relevant to this article.

Elst's book Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim conflict (1990) was the first book published by a non-Indian on the Ayodhya debate.^[1] His opinion is that "until 1989, there was a complete consensus in all sources (Hindu, Muslim and European) which spoke out on the matter, viz. that the Babri Masjid had been built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple."^[2] He claimed that politically motivated academics have, through their grip on the media, manufactured doubts concerning this coherent and well-attested tradition.^[1] Elst alleges that the anti-Temple group in the Ayodhya conflict have committed serious breaches of academic deontology and says that the "overruling of historical evidence with a high-handed use of academic and media power" in the Ayodhya controversy was the immediate reason to involve himself in the debate.^[3]

K. Elst sent Goel a manuscript of his first book Ram Janmabhoomi Vs. Babri Masjid: A Case Study in Hindu Muslim Conflict. Goel was impressed with Elst's script: "I could not stop after I started reading it. I took it to Ram Swarup the same evening. He read it during the night and rang me up next morning. Koenraad Elst's book, he said, should be published immediately."^[4] In August 1990, L. K. Advani released Koenraad Elst's book about the Ayodhya conflict at a public function presided over by Girilal Jain.^[4]^[5] The book was presented to the world by L.K. Advani and Girilal Jain, together with Sita Ram Goel’s Hindu Temples, What Happened to Them, and thereby appeared on the cover of most Indian newspapers. ^[6]

Koenraad Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate were the first publications by a western scholar on the debate, and remain the most well-known ones on the Hindu side. Very prominent politicians like L.K. Advani have cited extensively from his books on Ayodhya debate, as was reported in Indian newspapers. "The book was presented to the world by L.K. Advani and Girilal Jain, and thereby appeared on the cover of most Indian newspapers."

Peter Heehs in " Myth, History and Theory" calls Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate the "best-known publications" for the Hindu side. Elst also participated/published his Ayodhya research (some of it in his Ayodhya book) in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. Others who have reviewed his work on this debate are Paul Teunissen and many more.
Further reading:
a large part of his first Ayodhya book is included in Vinay Chandra Mishra and Parmanand Singh, eds.: Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid, Historical Documents, Legal Opinions & Judgments, Bar Council of India Trust, Delhi 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 09:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Ayodhya demolition: an evaluation", in Dasgupta, S., et al.: The Ayodhya Reference, q.v., p. 123-154.

The Ayodhya debate in Pollet, G., ed.: Indian Epic Values. Râmâyana and Its Impact. Leuven: Peeters. 1995, q.v., p. 21-42. (adapted from a paper of the International Ramayana Conference and the October 1995 Annual South Asia Conference in Madison, Wisconsin)

The Ayodhya debate: focus on the "no temple" evidence, World Archaeological Congress, 1998
Prof. Edwin Bryant notes that it is one of Elsts notable works. ^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991)
^ Koenraad Elst. Who is a Hindu? Chapter Nine
^ Koenraad Elst. Who is a Hindu? Chapter Eleven
^ ^a ^b Sitam Ram Goel, How I became a Hindu. ch.9
^ Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991) Footnote 64
^ http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/01/what-have-i-done.html
^ The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History edited by Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton Among twenty published titles, most attention has been drawn by his Update on the Aryan Invasion ..... and Ayodhya, the Case against the Temple.

Delete Fails WP:BKCRIT Shrikanthv (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another editor noted that this editor has an "extremely poor judgement on whats need deletion and what needs editing", as noted by other editors here and by another admin on his talkpage. He was in fact warned to stop editing in Articles for Deletion areas. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact they were asked not to nominate AfD. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
The famous author Kushwant Singh also commented on Elsts first Ayodhya book.^[1] Elst's books on the Ayodhya debate have been reviewed by professor R.N. Rao and Koenraad Elst himself has reviewed books on this topic in academic journals and published articles in journals including the Journal of Indian History and Culture about the Ayodhya debate.

The second Ayodhya book was reviewed by professor Ramesh Rao. ^[2]

Indologist Gerald James Larson called the second Ayodhya book a good treatment of the Neo Hindu interpretation of the evidence. ^[3]

The second Ayodhya book is cited in numerous publications, like Thomas Gilly's The Ethics of Terrorism, D. Anands "Hindu nationalism in India", Rebecca Frey's "Fundamentalism", Edwin Bryants "Quest for the origins of Vedic culture", and many more.

K. D. Sethna, also known as Amal Kiran, he praised Elst's book on Babri Masjid as "absolutely the last word".^[4]

review
Outlook India Elst on Ayodhya

Professor Edwin Bryant notes: Among twenty published titles, most attention has been drawn by his Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate; Gandhi and Godse (a close discussion of the apology of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse); The Saffron Swastika: The Notion of “Hindu Fascism”; and Ayodhya the Case against the Temple.

Ayub Kahn notes: Such is his importance in Hindutva circles that L.K.Advani quoted him at length while deposing before the Liberhans Commission investigation the demolition of Babri Masjid, says Ayub Khan.

“Ayodhya’s three history debates”, in Journal of Indian History and Culture (Chennai), September 2011.

In August 1990, L. K. Advani released Koenraad Elst's book about the Ayodhya conflict at a public function presided over by Girilal Jain.

RN Rao notes the second Ayodhya book is the is the best-researched, and most thorough analysis of the RSS and its affiliates, and of the "notion of Hindu 'fascism'" in a review published by CJS Wallia (Ph.D. Stanford University, teaches at Berkeley University).

The book also contains rebuttals of Romila Thapar, Sanjay Subramaniam, Richard Eaton, Yoginder Sikand, Amber Habib and of Mitsuhiro Kondō.

Note: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) has deleted sources I added to the book article during the deletion discussion. This includes

-deletion of the fact that the book was presented to the world by L.K. Advani and Girilal Jain,and thereby appeared on the cover of most Indian newspapers

-deletes that Peter Heehs in " Myth, History and Theory" calls Elsts books on the Ayodhya debate the "best-known publications" for the Hindu side

-deletes metions that some chapters were also published in journals or presented in conferences

- and more

Therefore please take care to also read the article history. It is very discouraging trying to expand these articles under deletion nomination when all my edits are removed by bogus reasons. He deleted references for example at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya:_The_Case_Against_the_Temple&curid=3137344&diff=602751368&oldid=602749893 here

So in summary, this book is notable because it had an important influence on Indian politics. Elsts writings on Ayodhya were quoted by home minister L.K. Advani, in the Liberhan Commission, in official political and legal publications during the Ayodhya controversy. And the very prominent politican L.K. Advani and the very prominent Girilal Jain released his first Ayodhya book at a public function. So his Ayodhya books had a huge political influence in India, it is quoted in official statments by the Home minister, for the Liberhan Commission.
Furthermore, the importance of his Ayodhya books was also mentioned by professor Edwin Bryant, and the work was commented on by Kushwant Singh and Peter Heehs calling them the "best-known" publications on the Hindu side. Elst was the first western writer to write on the Ayodhya debate, his writings were and still are controversial, but they were published in journals and presented in conferences, and reviewed by eminent and well-known scholars like K.D. Sethna, N.S. Rajaram. Professor Edwin Bryant noted that it is one of his notable works.

^ http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/03/no-more-khushwant-singh.html
^ http://www.rameshnrao.com/history-ayodhya-after.html
^ India's Agony Over Religion By Gerald James Larson
^ Mother India: Monthly Review of Culture, Volume 58. page 521

Delete per nomination. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user also deleted a source I put into one of the articles up for deletion. [14] which was reverted by another editor because it was not appropriate. This is not impartial. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to assume good faith at AfD discussions is troubling. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have not been reverted that many times during these deletion discussions like me, often for bogus reasons. (like reviews and comments by Bat Ye'or, Christian Bouchet, Edwin Bryant, Michael Witzel, Hans Hock, R.N. Rao, Kushwant Singh, L.K. Advani, Girilal Jain, and many more were reverted. This makes it extremely frustrating to add sources to the article during these deletion discussions. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made an incorrect reversion and thanked the editor who corrected it. Many of your edits that have been reverted correctly and you should use them as an opportunity to learn about reliable sources. You have only a handful of edits and seem to be taking potshots at experienced editors who have reverted you. Editing of articles never stands still just because an AfD discussion is happening. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma has already said that this is irrelevant for knowing if the reverts were right or not and I will show in the other Article for Deletion article more cases were these reverts were not justified. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book doesn't even seem to pass WP:GNG. Most of the citations are from the author's other books; one simply mentions that someone felt the book should be published. I can't seem to find any evidence that this book has had a significant effect on the study of religion or politics in India. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not read the text above. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calypsomusic, I did read the discussion and I still said that I think it should be deleted. Perhaps I am wrong, but there are more polite ways to express disagreement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Keep" voters do not provide valid arguments and/or reliable sources that establish notability. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are hundreds of articles in the Book stub cat, many of them more obscure than this one; so why is this one being singled out? If the article is too short or missing sources, you could first have asked for them. You didn't even notify the deletion sorting lists about this nomination for deletion. The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination. Not liking what a book says is not really a good reason for voting for its deletion; in fact it is a very bad reason. Book pages are absolutely relevant to Wikipedia. I think a lot of people are voting because they don't like the idea of the book. The problem is not that his works are not notable, the problem is that the author is very controversial. It is a very controversial author, so that even 20 years after the publication, some people still advocate to shun him and censor his writings (I'm not referring to the nominator for deletion).

It is not only the book article which should be expanded and also enlarged with sources, it it the author article itself which has serious NPOV problems, according to this link: [15]

Elsts books on criticism of Islam from an Indian viewpoint, of which this one is one of the most prominent, are often discussed by professors, scholars, critics. Elst also participated/published his research in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books (for example by professors Arvind Sharma, Edwin Bryant & Laurie Patton,Herman Siemens & Vasti Roodt,Hans Geybels & Walter Van Herck, Angela Marcantonio & Girish Nath Jha, and more)and bestellers (Daniel Pipes book), and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. He is widely seen as the main or one of the main propenents "sympathetic" to the "Hindu side", for example by critical scholars like Meera Nanda or also by many Hindu authors. His books have been reviewed and discussed by Harvard professors, other professors, leading scholars and journalists (Sanjay Subramaniam, Meera Nanda....). What more can one ask? Some of his books have been translated into other languages. Elst says, "I have crossed swords with Mira Kamdar, Christophe Jaffrelot, Meera Nanda, Amber Habib, MF Husain as well as his critics, DN Jha, Harbans Mukhia, Wiliam Dalrymple, Edward Said, Ramachandra Guha, Ashish Nandy, Edward Luce, Vikas Swarup, Martha Nussbaum etc. The record shows that I have not limited myself to the gullible and the already-converted." --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)— Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing noteworthy. Seems like a series of promotion for several books by the same author.Iniciativass (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it promotional? If so, you are free to edit it and remove WP:PEACOCK terms that make it promotional. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-many hindus are islamophobic and dont want to anger muslims by publishing the true records of their bloody history in India,muslims are lapping it up well. This article needs to be keept as it confirms to highest standards of scholarship ,just to appease some religious groups History should not be white washed. Rim sim (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it "confirms to highest standards of scholarship" as you claim, then where are the academic sources which discuss this in detail? Your vote is a tad biased I think. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before many historians in India fear muslims,they will even white wash 9/11, so will you delete all the information written about 9/11 and osama, this article was based on a book written by a western man, he has written the truth ,if muslims find it guilty there's no time machine to go and change prophet mohammed's views on kaffirs. Rim sim (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for sources to back your claims of "confirms to highest standards of scholarship", not another islamophobic rant. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Rim sim (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:INDENT, so you have no sources to back your claim that this book "confirms to highest standards of scholarship", how unsurprising. I would recommend you remove your personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what are the books that "confirms to highest standards of scholarship" regarding islamic quran and hadiths,this book is written by a scholar what else does one need ,i don't understand. Rim sim (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read WP:INDENT. There are thousands of academic sources which discuss the Koran in detail, there are none which discuss this one. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't seem to locate any mainstream reviews of this thing, nor any news about the book. It fails WP:GNG as it doesn't seem to have made any impact within the field of religious studies or political science. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 43 known holdings in WorldCat[16], which means it's unlikely the book got much traction in academic circles. Times of India has a few instances of comment spam that mention the book, but nothing beyond that. Given that this is a marginal writer working with a fringe publisher, I'm not surprised at the absence of reliable sources to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Worldcat is not reliable at all for India, even extremely well known books show only 1 or 2 results in India. But a quick search shows that it has been cited in various other books and papers (like the book by Bat Ye'or), and there were some reviews like the critical review by Amber Habib.--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this book wasn't as important like his other books were. So if it is going to be deleted, there should be no problem, or if it is going to remain then still, article may need some improvement. Fundarise (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)— Fundarise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Other stuff existing is no reason to keep. Miniapolis 22:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Duplicate !vote. Miniapolis 13:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC))~~Keep~~ Comment This page just gives one information about a book that was written about dark chapters in History of India which muslims are not comfortable with since it records their acts with earnest without any compromise, i hope the administrator takes a serious look at these delete requests which are made by Muslims and their apologists and keep this page alive for future generations to know about a book that is critical about history. Rim sim (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book was reviewed critically by Amber Habib. The famous author Bat Ye'or writes in her book "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide": The contemporary historical negationism in India, with the collusion of Hindu politicians, is discussed in detail by Koenraad Elst in his book on this subject. CJS Wallia (University of Berkeley) writes: Like Konraad Elst’s Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, Francois Gautier’s Rewriting Indian History contributes to the growing literature of dissent against the “standard” textbooks of India’s history. The book was well received among some writers and journalists, Francois Gautier discussed it at length and called it a very interesting book in his 1996 book on Indian history. (Rewriting Indian history by Gautier) --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with this AFD

Note: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) has deleted sources I added to the book articles during the deletion discussion. Second Note: They were in the other book articles, not (yet) in this one. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you on about? I have not deleted anything from the article, I have two edits to it, a PROD and then the nomination for deletion. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I do on other article have no place in this discussion, you made a false accusation, strike it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Even though Darkness Shines has collapsed the above section, he is removing references from the article. One was maybe a copyvio, so I fixed that. The other was a blog that reprinted the book review, which should be fine, as the book review was originally years ago published on a book review website which is now defunct. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He is also deleting to the Bat Ye'or book. The reference is the cited book itself, so it does not need a citation. Stop removing valid references for bogus reasons. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please also check the article history - as many references are being deleted by Darkness Shines from the article during the deletion discussion. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be misrepresenting sources, you say that Gautier discusses this book, and devotes a chapter to it, which chapter would that be? As I have this book and the only mention of Elsts works is "Historian Konraad Elst, in his book "Negationism in India", quotes Professor K.S. Lal" on page 22. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the book is online, in the link that I removed after your copyvio notice (am I allowed to post the link here?). It is chapter 5. 5. NEGATIONISM AND THE MUSLIM CONQUESTS

It begins like this: It is important to stop a moment and have a look at what the Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst, has called "negationism in India". In his foreword to the book of the same title, Koenraad explains that negationism, which means in this context "the denial of historical crimes against humanity", is not a new phenomenon. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you cannot put linkvios anywhere. Gautier does not actually devote a chapter to Elsts work then? He just uses Elsts definition of negationisim? Will double check for you, I am guessing you may have read it wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Famous author N.S. Rajaram says that the book is "well-known". [17] --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? That is not a reliable source at all, that could be anyone named N.S. Rajaram, or the owner of the SPS pretending to be. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONSENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calypsomusic. I do think the article needs a few minor improvements, but it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Yambaram (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per users above. [redacted] It's a pile of shit that is totally, totally NOT NOTABLE. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Such comments are usually ignored. Elst is heavily accepted in academia. You have obviously got no idea about him. Better if you do some research before making these useless comments, also learn the definition of Fascism. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NarSakSasLee: We have many articles on books written by fascists whose views aren't accepted in academia (Mein Kampf is only the most prominent example). We have articles on books that are piles of shit (say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and even books that are about piles of shit (Everyone Poops). Notability is, at root, a measure of independent third parties noting a particular work. Excretable books (in both senses) that are widely condemned are guaranteed to meet our guidelines for notability. This may be a terrible book by a terrible person, but the article is at AfD because it was more or less ignored in the wider world. Please take a look at WP:NBOOK. The criteria are pretty straightforward. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because of such editors on wikipedia, this article is now (again) at the BLP noticeboard. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOT WP:NOTABLE. Not scholarly. Not cited by anyone except bloggers and other lunatics. Totally pseudo-scientific. Still a pile of shit. If anything it belongs on Elsts own article. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:IDONTLIKEIT nonsense, You haven't read the policy that you are referring. Just stop misusing the words and links you don't know about. There's nothing related to science in the book, so how it can be 'pseudo scientific'? Read WP:NPA. You cannot make personal attacks about anything in wikipedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's because his claims are trying to be scientific? He claims that 100 million Hindus have died in some mythical holocaust, whilst real scholars such as Simon Digby of Cambridge University have proven his claims are utter shit. If you that much in love with the author not to see this then you have proven yourself incompetent and unintelligble, and also ignorant. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't compare if superman is better or batman is. Why there is any need to? Simon Digby never even referred to Elst in his books. Where did Elst claims in that book, that "100 million hindus died".. See you are only making up nonsense as usual for pushing your useless pov. I think it will prove enough that who's incompetent, ignorant, and also incapable, but for now we can agree that only you are, because there is no word like 'unintelligble' in English, better if you learn english before coming back with same nonsense. Read Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEFIELD D4iNa4 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~strong Keep~~Comment: all references are being deleted by Darkness Shines from the article during the deletion discussion, also all the works of this author are targeted and any article that is critical about islamic fundamentalism is being vandalized. i hope the Administrator acts wisely and take the right decision. Rim sim (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeatedly !voting. Miniapolis 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep : Book has been also referred by Daniel Pipes. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4 Where? Was this a review or a passing mention? If you were thinking about this link], that's a reader's comment on Pipes' blog. If you've found a review, please let us know where it is. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, I must have confused with the postscript, that was reviewed by Daniel Pipes. But this book has been referred by Bernard Shapiro, in "The Battle For Eretz Yisrael Jews, G-d and Israel..." D4iNa4 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4, thanks. Looking at the book (here), I'm just seeing one mention of Negationism (p. 45). What we're looking for is reviews or some other in-depth discussion of the work in what we call a "reliable source" (newspapers, books and magazines are (mostly) fine, blogs and personal websites (mostly) aren't). If you could track down that kind of review, that would be great! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions are also enough sometimes, but like other user noted, there are reviews about this book. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those reviews that were mentioned above already are all long. It would not be surprising if Daniel Pipes had also commented on the book, as Elst was the co-author of one of Daniel Pipes books.
The well known author Francois Gautier elaborates on the book in a whole chapter of his book.

Which book? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one (fifth chapter): Rewriting Indian History François Gautier India Research, 2003 ISBN 8187943270, 9788187943273

Based on what I'm seeing in google books, this is another passing mention. If you have a copy of the book and wouldn't mind quoting a couple of relevant paragraphs, I'd appreciate it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. Darkness shines told me not to paste the link because of copyvio, but you can find the book online. It is chapter 5. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, found it. Two passing mentions. The first paragraph discusses the forward of Negationism. The eighth paragraph contains a single quote. The rest of the chapter is what Gautier thinks of negationism, not what Elst thinks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count more than than that. The problem might be that there are different versions or books that show up on google, which is also confusing me. The text on saveindia.com mentions Elst six times in the chapter, the one at aboutindia.asia mentions him seven times and has this footnote: * For more details, read “Negationism in India, concealing the record of Islam”, by Koenraad Elst, Voice of India, New Delhi.--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more review by A. Gosh, the author of books on Islam. Because this was a dozen years ago, the website I found is not up to date. [18] (This is same review, but has a very long discussion) Another writer comments on this review here [19] --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are broken. The third is to an article at iviews.com. The article contains only a passing mention of the book. I'll reproduce it here:

The Hindutva scholars are joined by foreign scholars such as Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier. Elsts's work Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam and Francois Gautier's Rewriting Indian History is part of the growing literature attacking Indian history textbooks. Their version of history portrays Muslims as having contributed nothing to India other than death, destruction and subjugation.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the link I pasted just above?--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The iviews links says: "For instance, in a glowing review of Elst's work Negationism in India, A. Ghosh writes that the view advocated by many Indian historians, including the Marxist M. N. Roy, that Islam was welcomed into India because it brought equality and respect to lower classes, is based on an incorrect picture of the caste system. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I could have been a little more clear there.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050309211710/ gets me to a page that says "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."

http://swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/bookstore/bookrev/niictroi.html redirects to swordoftruth.com, which (as a domain name) is currently for sale.

The quote you provided tells me about what Ghosh thinks, not about what's in Negationism. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link is http://web.archive.org/web/20050309211710/http://swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/bookstore/bookrev/niictroi.html

The other link shows that Faisal_Kutty comments on this review. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. Very interesting subject. referred to by well-known authors, passes notability. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lokalkosmopolit: Unfortunately, WP:NBOOK doesn't mention how interesting the subject is, or how often it's name-dropped. If you can point us to "multiple, non-trivial published works", then that would go a long way towards establishing notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, well known author N.S. Rajaram says in a book review on one of Elsts other books: "At the same time, this takes nothing away from Elst's earlier work on Ayodhya and negationism. They remain valid and valuable." He means of course with negationism this book. review was originally published in the Pioneer Pioneer, 18 March 2007 --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a passing mention in a copypasted review of a completely different book.

Elst's Asterik... is supposed to be an updated version of his earlier Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate.

I'm getting the sense that you're not reading these sources before you post them here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC

Sorry for not being clear. I said N.S. Rajaram says in a book review on one of Elsts other books.

Anyway, this book has been the subject of multiple reviews (Amber Habib, Arvind Ghosh, Francois Gautier), and therefore passes the notablitiy criteria which are rules of thumb anyway. It also had an influence on writers and on the debate on this topic. As per the nutshell of WP:N, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not [part of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT]. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Habib's review is not a reliable source. Per [20], [21], [22], the review was posted to Habib's geocities website. I have found no evidence that it was ever republished by a third-party source. (I have also not be able to locate the text of the review.)

Amber Habib is the son of famous historian Habib, who is also discussed extensively in Elsts book. His website was at http://www.geocities.ws/a_habib/India/oldindia.html, please take a look. This looks like a well developed website. There were many well developed websites at geocities and this is one of them. What matters if he made the website on geocities or on his own domain? The text of the review is at http://archive.is/LpWSF. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition Elst has written a reply to that review in another of his books, so this could also be used in the article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gautier's work contains only passing mentions of Negationism. Chapter 5 of "Rewriting Indian History" contains one paragraph that summarizes the forward of Negationism and one quote later in the chapter.

Why are you repeating again your claim, when I replied to it above already??? : I count more than than that. The problem might be that there are different versions or books that show up on google, which is also confusing me. The text on saveindia.com mentions Elst six times in the chapter, the one at aboutindia.asia mentions him seven times and has this footnote: * For more details, read “Negationism in India, concealing the record of Islam”, by Koenraad Elst, Voice of India, New Delhi.--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the chapter, and it is clearly much more than a passing mention. Summary or review of Elsts' book in one chapter of Gautiers book (with some elaborations maybe) would be more appropriate. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosh's review, isn't. Ghosh wrote an essay for a now-defunct outfit called Sword of Truth [23]. While this essay is labelled as a review, it mentions neither the book nor the author.

I also replied that Faisal_Kutty commented on the Arvind Ghosh review: "For instance, in a glowing review of Elst's work Negationism in India, A. Ghosh writes that the view advocated by many Indian historians, including the Marxist M. N. Roy, that Islam was welcomed into India because it brought equality and respect to lower classes, is based on an incorrect picture of the caste system. " It seems that Faisal Kutty disagrees with you. Maybe it is not the full text of the review that is online?

In conclusion: Elst is very much on the fringe of Indian historical studies, and while he's well known in these circles (and certainly notable as an author), his several books rework the same basic themes for the same narrow, self-selected audience. These are not the kind of books that are going to attract the attention of outside reviewers, and it's not surprising that they haven't. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, also it is not the same basic or narrow themes, he has written on a lot of different themes, and his work was reviewed and discussed by professors like Harvard professors and such. --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per NEWSEVENT, although this event is tragic, I see traffic incidents (commercial bus crashes of similar size in various countries) that do not have standalone articles. Tawker (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hub bus-tanker crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, WP:N, and WP:NOT#NEWS as there's been no long-term impact of this accident and so far has only be a brief burst of news coverage at the time of the event. This is a news event better suited for covering at Wikinews, not a global encyclopedia. Was PROD'd but PROD was removed. MASEM (t) 14:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 35 deaths is a very notable accident. I really don't think an accident of this magnitude in Britain or North America would even be up for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of deaths is not a metric of notability, and if the same event with the same type of coverage (a burst of stories worldwide and nothing else afterward) occurred in the NA or UK, it would still fail NEVENT. We have Wikinews for the purposes for these types of stories. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Frankly, rubbish! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no indication this will have any lasting influence. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NEWSEVENT. As per WP:EVENTCRIT,

--Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. --No historical significance or a significant lasting effect.

--Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact. --No International impact.

--Events having limited scope may or may not be notable. Yes, limited scope.

--Routine kinds of news events are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Yes, Routine kind of news event with no enduring significance.

Article simply doesn't satisfy any of the event notability criteria and qualify deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Ofelia[edit]

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

Probable hoax, as the only surviving edit of Gali81 (talk · contribs). Recently PRODded by User:Jojhutton stating: Can't find any sources for this subject. The only items that turn up in search results are mirror sites, some of them even including the (citation needed) tags. PROD was declined as AfD required in case she was a saint. – Fayenatic London 13:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe it's a hoax. I could not find anything about this Danish "Saint", and being a Dane myself I should probably have come across at least a mention at some point. --Danmuz (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of a Saint Ofelia (or Ophelia) or Saint Ascanio at Catholic.org or any other reference I searched. (I note that the original uploader made her a disciple of Saint Ascanio, and the recent change to Saint Ansgar by User:Habibicb appears to have been done solely because of the association with Denmark and the February 3rd date, but without actual reference to a source.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is possible that this is the fictional character of Ophelia from Hamlet, as portrayed in the 2002 novel The Prince of Denmark by Graham Holderness. As described in this scholarly article, "The novel is interlarded with medieval texts, for instance, the chronicles of Ansgar". Also, in Lisa Klein's 2006 novel Ophelia, Ophelia becomes a nun and healer in France. So possibly this is not so much a hoax as simply a fictional character. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came across this article by accident last week and noticed that there weren't any citations at all. An internet search only gave me mirror images of this article. Also, there is no Saint Ofelia listed as a saint on any Vatican list, or on any other list anywhere. Most likely a hoax that should have been deleted by now. Unfortunately an editor on a "PROD removal binge" decided to remove the PROD I added last Friday. Justification given is if she is a genuine saint then she would have an article. I agree with that in theory, but the editor has no idea if the subject is a genuine saint. If the editor truly feels that the article should not be deleted, then removing the PROD is justified, but to remove a PROD without knowing one way or the other is just lazy.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
speedily delete as a hoax and a trout for the passer-by removal of the PROD template. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was me who removed the prod. I was not on a "PROD removal binge", neither was it a "passer-by removal". I would suggest that editors review WP:PROD, the profile of the editor they're insulting, and the fact that the internet is not the be-all and end-all of article sourcing before they make unnecessary, unproductive snide remarks. If they are too lazy to take to AfD (which is clearly way too much trouble for some "passer-by" prodders) instead of just prodding (which is meant to be for articles that are clearly utter rubbish or clearly non-notable) then I suggest they find a more productive way to spend their time. If I consider an article needs further discussion at AfD I will continue to remove prods, something I only do when I consider it is justified, either because the article is clearly notable or I consider (as here) that it needs further discussion at AfD. It is a slightly worrying development (and also demonstrates an arrogant disregard for the consensual principles of Wikipedia) when editors are taken to task for deprodding as they are perfectly entitled to do, especially when a reason for doing so is clearly given. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time to delete all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prjudice to re-creation if it can be properly sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just makeing an observation that this article is most likely a very good hoax. If that's true, then it would be number ten on the WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. And someone removed the PROD. JOJ ^Hutton 01:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Dabney[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people) (specifically, WP:DIRECTOR). No major works to speak of, and the AFCA he founded also lacks notability. Article has also been tagged for several months regarding notability issue. —Eustress 13:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources to speak of. This ain't the '80s, when music video directors were marginally notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donyil Livingston[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, claims unsupported by references. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boxing championship claims are all unsourced. Article's only source is a link to his fight record. Fails both WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and doesn't meet WP:GNG since the only source is his professional fight record. Papaursa (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Toweel[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer/trainer - claims of notability not supported by references. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography with no supported claims of notability. An external link to his fight record shows he doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced biography that fails to show he's notable. Papaursa (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. → Call me Hahc21 19:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.A.M.I.[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article. I also fail to see how it meets Wikipedia's Notability standards M.Jormungand (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Putting aside that the album charted at number 14 (U.S.), has sold 644,000+ units and is certified gold, there is significant coverage out there in addition to the article's current references (e.g., [24][25][26][27]). If expansion/better sourcing is desired, this is a clear candidate for Be Bold and Fix It, not deletion. Gong show 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Per refs on Pitbull discography, peaked at number 15 on the Billboard 200, sold over 500,000 copies, and was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America. This can be incorporated into the article, and deletion certainly isn't the route to take here. Holiday56 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per Gongshow. Ever heard of WP:BEFORE M.Jormungand? STATic message me! 22:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Holiday56. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doppelgänger[edit]

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

Original research, content forking, and false synthesis in order to retroactively establish false terminology. Salvageable content should be merged into either Evil twin or Alter ego. See latest entry at talkpage for details. FinalGamer (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is, BTW, the first nomination, but the notification was done improperly in syntax somehow so the discussion link in the template at the article doesn't work and when you look at the article's source code, there's a link "for administrator use" pointing to a false "earlier" AfD dated today. --2.240.228.185 (talk) 10:01, 2 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 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An evil twin or alter-ego is not the same thing as a doppelgänger. This isn't a content fork and the talkpage entry just seems a long winded rant by yourself that has existed for all of 3 hours. Clearly, if you think the content of the page is in question, then alert various interested parties and wait for their input, rather than stating the following: IF I don't like it, THEN delete. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought the nominator was 2.240.228.185, but it's someone else. But my point still stands. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Passes the general notability guideline and has a slew of reliable sources to back up its claims. Also, no original research is not in itself a reason for deletion. Ging287 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Not a content fork in the slightest. A well-known and specific term. The nom's reasons are all completely spurious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs rewriting and header meanwhile. As the article goes, it is a clear demonstration of why paranormal believers are hardly ever WP:COMPETENT to write about the paranormal. We have references to "documented cases" and "scientific experiments", implying that there is great mystery here, which they assert "science can never solve". Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep second Barney Kugo2006 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - There is a valid topic here, and a common literary trope... it just needs TLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 5 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 Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Foundation. The fundamental consensus here is that this subject is not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. Merge whatever content seems worthwhile into the main article, and redirect to there. Exactly which bits are worth merging seems like a content question which would best be discussed on Talk:Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Foundation -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guggenheim Guadalajara[edit]

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

This is an article about a museum construction project that was considered, but ultimately not pursued, and was abandoned in 2009. A feasibility study was made, but the museum never committed to construction. The proposal and its cancellation are old news and not of any encyclopedic interest, as large institutions routinely propose but ultimately reject some of their proposed projects. Note that the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, after describing its projects that have been completed, includes this sentence: "Other projects in Rio de Janeiro, Vilnius, Salzburg, Guadalajara and Taichung were also considered but not completed." -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "he proposal and its cancellation are old news and not of any encyclopedic interest," Notability is not temporary. The planned museum as well as that in Abu Dhabi were well documented in reliable sources. The article issues can be addressed with cleanup, not deletion. As an aside, thee was extended content in the Foundation page, which Ssilvers has already removed. While consensus can change, I'm not sure it has been established that the content isn't notable. StarM 02:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guggenheim Abu Dhabi is an entirely different situation: it is under construction. The Guadalajara site was merely a proposal where construction never began, and it was ultimately abandoned. It was of interest when there was a possibility that it might be built, but once it was cancelled, I would suggest, it was of no continuing encyclopedic interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a project that never got off the ground and of little encyclopaedic value Jack1956 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Why do we have an article on project that was never substantiated? As per Jack1956, this offers very little to the reader and should be deleted. Cassianto ^talk 22:25, 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, → Call me Hahc21 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very important to the history of the Guggenheim's history worldwide(proposals and architects and art, political and financial crossovers)Masterknighted (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us try one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation#Later activities where the project is given an extremely brief and appropriate mention. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Yes, a redirect there is a good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 2 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 2NE1 concert tours. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AON: All Or Nothing World Tour[edit]

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

Delete as not news. We do not need a separate article with setlists and locations of a tour. this can easily be merged into the artist page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates a section from List of 2NE1 concert tours; standalone article does not seem necessary. Gong show 17:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 2NE1 concert tours, delete first if you wish. This could have been done without going to AfD, although I am sure it would have just been reversed, and we would have ended up here anyway.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it until just yesterday. That's my fault. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of these articles, and the fact that the fans tend to reverse redirects, AfD isn't always a bad thing. As I said, we may have ended up here anyway. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of 2NE1 concert tours, since this is not a notable concert tour and all of the information is already listed there, so there is nothing to even merge, but it could still be a plausible search term. Aspects (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect/merge to List of 2NE1 concert tours. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted G12 by RHaworth (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.iq.harvard.edu/book/mission). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Quantitative Social Science[edit]

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

unreferenced since feb 2013. does not appear to pass WP:ORG or WP:NONPROFIT Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 2014 Political Science journal article by Gary King, here suffices for me as pretty good documentation. That article is cited by 5 others apparently already. Google search brings up plenty under the current name of the center alone. It has existed for a longer time under the former name of the center. There is plenty about this; notability is clear. --doncram 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Two notes on that source. 1) its by gary king, the director of the IQSS surely fails the "independent" test. 2) Gary king is the author of the article, which surely fails WP:COI as well (although Gary certainly has a very respectable history on wiki otherwise).Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reason given above (the journal article by Gary king), I believe that this wikipedia entry should not be deleted. User talk:Ctfn 22:54 02 April 2014 (BST). — Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have read the article and I tend to agree with doncram. The institute seems to be notable for me. User:BenoitHoog 12:18, 2 April 2014 (GMT+1)

Speedy delete. Much of the article is copied directly from the sources and thus a copyright violation. Also, the article contains no references to independent sources to demonstrate notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
nominator speedy delete copyright violation
- "director" section copyright violation source : http://gking.harvard.edu/biocv
- "what does social science mean" copyvio source : http://www.iq.harvard.edu/book/mission
- "centers" http://www.primidi.com/institute_for_quantitative_social_science/centers_at_iqss

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyana Armstrong-Emery[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who lives in Gibraltar who happens to have founded her own party which is now defunct, been a co-ordinater for friends of the earth locally in Gibraltar and has stood for the European Parliament in 2004 and is planning on standing in 2014. None of these activities on their own or taken together establish notability for this individual and Wikipeida is not collection of every person in someway involved in politics. Sport and politics (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's now a LibDem candidate for the Southwest region of the UK and Gibraltar for the forthcoming European elections[28], if that changes anything. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply a little bit but not much. She's 6th LibDem candidate, meaning in effect that the South-West would have to vote in 6 lib dems and none from any other parties. This is extremely unlikely given that the LibDems have since 1999 had 1 MEP from this region. The LibDems will be banking on 1 seat and hoping to pick up another, but 6 is asking for loyal tory voters to not vote or swing to the left which they won't do (although many might vote for UKIP). Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Occupying the last spot on a European Parliamentary Regional Election list does not change things one dot, if she becomes an MEP then that changes things. Also now that she is a Liberal Democrats is meaningless in this context. Sport and politics (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Political candidates are NN until elected. The chacnces of the LibDems getting more than a couple of seats in this constituency in next May's election are minimal; accordingly so are her chances of getting elected. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant guidelines for politicians. If she were to win an election that would be a different story, but candidates are not in general notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick search of Gibraltarian media brings up many articles discussing her activities. Not notable as a Lib Dem candidate, but that's irrelevant. Warofdreams talk 00:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Active politician. OccultZone (Talk) 13:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being an active politician does not qualify an individual as notable as per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. the subject must have wider notability backed up by independent and verifiable third party sources. Sport and politics (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She could still be notable even as an unelected politician, per point 3 of wp: politician. But I don't see any secondary coverage of her at all, and a quick Google search didn't turn up any secondary coverage of her. She is perhaps notable for founding the Gibraltar Reform Party, but the article on that party can cover her contributions in that regard (and perhaps could also have a note saying that the founder of the party later joined the Liberal Democrats. Delete as non-notable. Orser67 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orser67. Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colortone (band)[edit]

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

unremarkable band lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article cites significant coverage from the Chicago Tribune. Highbeam also finds a short article in the Chicago Sun-Times. As the band released a major label album, further coverage is likely to exist, but given that the band was around in the 1980s, the bulk of any coverage is likely to be in print sources that may not be available online. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 17 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, → Call me Hahc21 05:21, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 2 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. Two people is a little small for a consensus, but given it's already been relisted twice it doesn't seem worth waiting longer. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paava Mannippu[edit]

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

PROD tag removed by user. New TV show, with no assertion of notability through reliable sources. The article reads like a press release by the production company. It looks like just another run-of-the-mill soap-opera. Alexf^(talk) 12:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as the nominator, you don't need to make a bolded delete !vote. Editors automatically assume you want the article deleted in your act of nominating the article for deletion, and making a bolded "delete" may distort the consensus for the closing admin. Mz7 (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the Notability guidelines with only one reliable? source. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:34, 6 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. Not enough discussion to form any real consensus, but relisting a third time seems pointless, so calling this a soft delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick International Development Summit[edit]

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

Student-run conference. No evidence of notability. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warwick Economics Summit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing of note here, a talking shop. There are 2 primary refs, not enough. Szzuk (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkly Smooth[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. One self-released album, two members of the same band though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 2 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisha Singh[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability per WP:GNG. The person's only claim to fame is a few publicity stunts and a role in a small unnotable film. Sources are promotional and or trivial thus failing WP:RS. RaviC (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePoorly written bibliography. Not a notable person. Jussychoulex (talk) 06:21, 18 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MSR Studios[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N; no coverage in independent, reliable sources Adabow (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 01:37, 16 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ssssssooooooooooo...... Innumerable mentions on backs of album jackets and film credits for the last 20 years is not "independent reliable sources"? How about all the trade rags that discuss it - both in the world of Hollywood (Variety, Billboard, Ad Age, Hollywood Reporter etc) as well as in the world of music (Mix, EQ, Microphone, Stereo Fidelity, Hi Fi and Stereo Review, The Absolute Sound etc etc etc.) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.176.170 (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Credits in album liners could only verify something like "this is a list of all the works that have been recorded at MSR Studios". We need actual substance, such as history of the studios and their features. The other sources sound more promising; could you post links here, or add them to the article? I can't find anything like that from a quick web search. Adabow (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Desktop Testing Project[edit]

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

Unreferenced and I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more info and refs. I think this article meets the guidelines and should not be deleted. cjbayliss

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated Learning Solutions[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:CORP Coderzombie (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources? Here is coverage in the National Law Review. Here is covereage in Daily Kos. A management company of numerous high schools would certainly seem to me to be defacto notable anyway if an individual high school is notable. And it seems they are expanding outside of Florida see here. Here is one of the reports on one of the school's they operate. Here is a report form the Charlotte Observer on the company's expansion there. Here is a public document about their activities in Lee COunty Florida. Here is an editorial that seems to deal with one of the company's executives. Here is coverage of some of their schools. And what exactly is advertorial? Doesn't the article just say that it is a charter school operator? WHat exactly do you object to? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DailyKos article seems to talk about illegal activities of the organization, so as per Wikipedia:CORP#Illegal_conduct, doesn't qualify as a source. Knoxview article just has a line about the company and doesn't say anything about it in particular. Same for national law review article and charlotte observer. Thus, there is no Wikipedia:CORP#Depth_of_coverage. To be frank, I didn't find any of the sources in my first search, so I'm not quite sure about proceeding with the deletion, but will keep the discussion open for now. Coderzombie (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable charter school operator overseeing numerous schools. Covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete No notability per WP:CORP--Zipezap (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As a nominator, and aforementioned reasons. Coderzombie (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - struck duplicate !vote from the nominator directly above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Blom[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable player who fails WP:RLN (Netherlands are not full members of the RLEF). J Mo 101 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 21:42, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 2 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. Additionally, there is a distinct possibility of a merge to Sun TV (India), the discussion of which can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India)[edit]

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

PROD removed by user. NN list of non-notable TV shows. Looks like an ad for the TV network. Alexf^(talk) 00:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - struck duplicate !vote from the nominator above. The nomination itself is the delete !vote. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not TV Guide. On second thought ... Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge the notable entries (I think there are maybe five relevant blue links) to Sun TV (India), which currently just links to this list for its programming section, though I think editors in this area should discuss whether non-notable series should also be included for this network, as may be acceptable in lists.
It is standard, accepted practice to index notable shows by the notable network on which they were broadcast; see Category:Lists of television series by network for such lists, and its parent Category:Television series by network for the direct categorization of TV series articles. Consensus has demonstrated again and again that such lists are not a WP:NOTTVGUIDE problem. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sun TV shows actually lists 11 Sun TV series... It looks like there's also a duplicate list at List of programs broadcast by Sun TV. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no rationale is provided that does not also apply to any of the Category:Lists of television series by network entries. Keep this or nuke all 350+ pages. @Postdlf:, the article List of programs broadcast by Sun TV should also be a disambiguation page just like how Sun TV is. Maybe a list of programs of all those television networks should also be started because i don't think that Sun TV (Hong Kong) or SUN TV (Turkey) would air same shows. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India) is just serving the list of the shows broadcasted by a regional Indian television, it is not showing much significant since most of the shows (listed in the article) have separate article and there are several others options to this like merging it with Sun TV (India) or promoting this through www.suntvnetwork.in which is their own official website. WOWॐIndian ^Talk 07:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "...since most of the shows...have separate article..." That's actually the most important reason for listing them together; I don't know why you'd think otherwise. Also, merging ≠ deleting. postdlf (talk) 14:32, 15 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue to improve. Our poor quality coverage of Indian popular culture topics doesn't mean we should nuke articles that need improvement.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:13, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 2 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 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge per postdlf. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:09, 3 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. Of note is that the sources presented in the discussion suggest that this subject may meet WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Wolf (artist)[edit]

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

Apparently self-promotional. Wholly self-sourced. Not seeing anything counting to GNG in a quick Google. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks any independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment - Seems to be an extensive bio on her here in this publication from the notable Albright-Knox Art Gallery. ~~This bio from Portland Art Museum lists some of the galleries who own her work: [29]~~ (Stricken on April 7: it is for Sherrie Wolf Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)). A slightly superficial article here on her bags from the Baltimore Sun. I'm pretty sure these are the same woman, despite the spelling of the name: [30], [31], - there can't be two Sherry/Sherrie Wolfs who are BOTH photorealistic painters. But then again, this suggests Sherry and Sherrie might be two different painters with close but not identical dates of birth and, though I've not really looked closely, possibly different backgrounds. But if they're the same woman (maybe she took a few years off her age for the more recent bio) then she seems to be notable. Certainly the one called Sherrie Wolf seems notable, and Sherry Wolf seems as if she should be notable. Mabalu (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sherry and Sherrie are definitely two different women, but with confusing similarities beyond name. The press page for Sherry Wolf shows an additional great source for her handbags with the WWD article. Also, a glance at the resume of the other suggests very strongly that Sherrie Wolf is more than notable enough for an article in her own right - extensively published since 1980s, exhibited, and collected. If we keep this article, as I think we probably should, then a second one needs to be created for Sherrie Wolf and hatnotes/disambiguation page installed to avoid any confusion between the two. Mabalu (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More sources on Sherry (with a Y) Wolf: 1978 article from "The People" headlined "A Young Artist Transforms the Lowly Scarf: It Becomes Jewelry" - not viewable right now, but def. about her; NY Times, 1981, an article about her, her career and her jewelry design in the Park Cities People, Jan 13 1994; Desert Sun, 2014, Interview in NYE Central (not sure if this is good enough as a source). One of her 1981 works, a self-portrait titled "Label Lady", in the Museum of the City of New York, but they don't identify her as the artist(!) - though several sources refer to it. There's an article on her in Art Magazine, 1980 - only viewable as snippets, but the Google reference text says ""Super realist" painter Sherry Wolf has received international recognition for her "Label Lady"- Acclaimed a masterpiece of technique, the work exhibits the artisf s skill as a brilliant social commentator. Careful selection of, and ..." and it is clearly about her specifically. So I am going to change my vote above from "Leaning keep" to a firm Keep - Sherry definitely passes general notability on her own merits due to ongoing coverage in multiple third-party sources since the 1970s, plus she has work in at least two major galleries/notable institutions. Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere seems to be enough here to suggest that Wolf is notable, and previous comments have indicated that there are sources that can be used to develop the article and/or provide citations. I agree with Mabalu that Sherrie Wolf also seems notable enough to have her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthistorygrrl (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 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. Consensus to keep following relisting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UE Boom[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 22:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Commercial puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I have based the article on HTC One (GA article). You may see some similarities in the way the two articles look, and some phrases I have adopted: "HTC One was praised for the quality of its industrial design,.." Please note, that I have also included a section "Critique" in which I have summarized all available cons I could find in the reliable sources. And, there are articles about bluetooth speakers, such as Bose_SoundLink. The UE Boom article will have to be linked to List of Logitech products.Dmatteng (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)— Dmatteng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. The Banner talk 17:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any COI in this matter? Xxanthippe(talk) 01:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

None. You can observe that I have included Critique section and also named SoundLink as a speaker that got better sound quality than UE Boom according to the reliable sources. Dmatteng (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or redirect/merge to "Ultimate Ears" - Since this is a product of Logitech, the article title should at a minimum, be rewritten or redirected as such. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UE stands for "Ultimate Ears". I think the device deserves it's own article as there are enough references and information. I would propose that rewriting/changing is a better approach. Please let me know what words/sentences look like puffery and I would be glad to submit another version. However, if consensus would be to meanwhile merge it, I would support it. Dmatteng (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2 I have also written in the tech section that the battery life is 8-10 hours. That is the lowest number I could find among all of the reviews (I have read 10 of them.) It's highly unlikely that if my desire would be to advertise, I would put this number undermining manufacturer's 15 hours claim, and to write it next to it.
- In addition, I have written that SoundLink's audio is better than UE Boom's per the reliable sources. I think I wouldn't write it would my desire be to advertise.
- I believe I have summarized the reliable sources per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Dmatteng (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And still you sound like a marketeer fighting for his corporate toy. The Banner talk 13:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one in his mind would state the lowest possibly battery life from among the reviews and advertise his competitor's speaker as a better sounding, if advertising was his intention. It does make sense if one was summarizing the sources per NPOV.
    - As I have said, I believe you have started AfD in a way that contradicts WP:Guide to deletion - "Before nominating a recently created article.. sharing your reservations with the article creator ..instead of bringing the article to AfD." Dmatteng (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unfortunately, it is the way you defend the article (including policy waving and canvassing) that gives me the idea that you are a marketeer. The Banner talk 20:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin. Please consider to see this nomination as frivolous. (And the nominator is currently blocked for disruptive behavior.) The guideline to deletion clearly states that if the potential nominator thinks an article is advertisement he should either be bold and edit or use cleanup tag. I'll be also contacting an experienced editor(s) to ensure that the article is NPOV and try to develop it towards GA. Dmatteng (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The article as it stands now is not ideally formatted, and does sound somewhat promotional, but the product is notable (has won awards and had multiple independent reviews). AFD is not cleanup. Simply "advertising" shouldn't be a rationale for deletion unless the article needs to be completely rewritten, or unless it is copied from a copyrighted website. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, comments like "you sound like a marketeer fighting for his corporate toy" are not very civil.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The product has received significant coverage in multiple notable publications, and the article is not so blatantly promotional as to be considered unsalvageable. Far from it. decltype (talk) 16:30, 2 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) 18:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Colors in Color Order[edit]

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

No indication of notability. No indication of *what* set of colours this is; no indication of what "color order" means (mostly alphabetic, it seems). In short, this is not encyclopedic material. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Although there is a small amount of information shown when hovering over the color box, it duplicates existing content at List of colors (compact) and other Lists of colors.--Animalparty-- (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, maybe speedy delete per A10 because it was created a month ago and it is a duplicate per Animalparty. This is not my last name (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A10. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A10. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant list which lacks understandable inclusion criteria. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:16, 4 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. As always when there is disagreement as to whether an article meets the GNG, you have to remember that "reliable" and "substantial" are inherently subjective. Some have argued that this was covered in sober news outlets like the NYT and thus meets the GNG, others have suggested that while it did appear there, it was "filler" content and should not count. There is no clear consensus either way, and as it is a subjective question there is no alternative but a no consensus close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voronezh UFO incident[edit]

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

The "incident" itself is an obvious hoax. There is no persistence of coverage of the hoax to make notable as a hoax; merely next day filler of "look how stupid the commie press is" infotainment. But the PROD was contested so here we are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete North8000 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are given below. North8000 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Apparently the incident received global attention and is the subject of much ufology writing. It would be good for posterity to have a sober account on WP. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- while it may be a part of ufology, as sources the ufology content is inherently non acceptable as sources, particularly if the object is to create a "sober account". can you find any reliable sources that have discussed the incident that would allow us to actually create encyclopedic coverage? because I wasnt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not my field. But with more than 40,000 Google hits 25 years after the event, there would seem to be enough worldwide interest to justify keeping an entry about it. I'm not immediately convinced that all the UFO books are "inherently non acceptable", either: that seems brusque, and more an issue of editorial content, not notability. Like angelology, cryptozoology, and other outliers in academia, ufology has developed its own wealth of documentation, and Voronezh appears to loom rather large in it. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS we actually need reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't get it. I'm seeing sources put out by UPI, AP and the New York Times discussing this business in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, and that's scarcely "infotainment." Done deal. Period. Those sources were in the article before this AfD was filed. I'd like to AGF here, so perhaps the nom could explain what part of the GNG he feels those sources fail to satisfy, or -- in the alternative -- what explicit policy that supersedes the GNG of which he believes this article runs foul. Ravenswing 01:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

those are all the same day filler simply playing up the fact that the Russian paper is turning into the Weekly World News. There is no demonstrated persistence of coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

The GNG doesn't require persistence of coverage. It requires that a subject be covered by multiple, reliable sources in significant detail. Period. Ravenswing 04:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

even if it meets GNG, it does not guarantee an article. it creates a presumption that we would be able to write an appropriate encyclopedia article. Given the content that is in the current sources, we cannot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the only news coverage of the actual topic was one writer who based his article entirely on talking with a few children. It looks like everything else is talking about / a derivitive of that coverage. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps a redirect to TASS and a one line bit there about how their publication of the UFO story made US news and became part of UFOlogy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TASS is the most relevant other article presently, but, it's a bad fit. In proper detail it would be taken as an undue polemic. GNG is met for an independent article, which is where it should go. With other sources available, it is possible that people can develop a more useful understanding of this incident. (I think it's pretty clear that officials in the U.S., Russia, and other countries encouraged UFO fever to some degree, but why? Was it to keep citizens watching the skies for foreign planes? To create a sense of human unity to make a way for detente? To create a new mythology where aliens replaced angels as the divine messengers who spoke into the Ruler's ear? To make cover for "alien abductions" to install very real listening/tracking devices? Sort of stuff I'd like to see the readership be able to chew on further as sources on topics like these are accumulated and correlated) Wnt (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at our TASS article after I made the suggestion and agree that in the current state of the TASS article, it would not fit. And none of the other language versions of TASS are any more developed to build easily from there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rest of your content, until there are reliable sources that delve into there, Wikipedians cannot do that ourselves. If you can produce such analysis, I would enthusiastically support keeping such an article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Wanting to keep it because it might someday be correlated and used to form conspiracy theories about governments manipulating the population isn't a good reason at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a person declines to say what a reader might do with an article, it's said that "there is no significance". You can WP:OR no-significance out of any and every AfD all day long and that's supposed to be a valid argument. But the moment someone says hey, there could be significance, then that is impermissible speculation. That is a rigged contest. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? We are at an AfD - claims of significance must actually be shown to actually exist, not just handwaved with a "There might be sources somewhere that might address this in an appropriate manner, or they might exist in the future." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because all coverage is due to "News of the Weird" or "Slow News Day" phenomenon explicitly warned against in WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Voronezh#1950s-1980s. Coverage by mainstream sources indicates the topic is best known as a Tass story peculiar to Voronezh rather than an event in ufology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage there would be WP:UNDUE; it is best to keep something this specialized in its own article. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that article-length coverage at Voronezh would be undue, but the 3 or 4 line summary there is about right. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT as this does not seem to be an event of "lasting, historical significance". The article suggests that the sighting became "one of the most famous UFO and alien sightings in Russia", which would be enough to establish notability if true, but this claim has no context (during that week? in history? even 25 years later?) and more importantly no source. --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has three big-name media sources; that passes WP:GNG. The only potential weak point I can see by that standard is that U.S. media sources might be argued not to be "independent" of Tass, being cold war and media rivals, but if you were to maintain that it would change how many articles about the Soviet Union are judged for any purpose. The fact it's a mass delusion with no real basis is irrelevant - for example, we have articles about Bitcoin and several satanic ritual abuse witch-trials. Once people deploy real resources based on a delusion it is no longer nonexistent. Any invocation of WP:FRINGE is wrong because our mainstream sources are giving the overall "normal" point of view of commentators about the subject. You don't say a subject itself is "fringe" based on your opinion of it. Wnt (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the three major US news sources are merely repetitions of what the TASS reported followed by... nothing. Merely fluff piece filler-o-the-day. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO WP:NOTNEWS applies twice over.....not news, and not news about a non-existent event. IMHO someone at Tass wrote what some kids said about a non-existent event, their only source of information and then a couple of papers wrote about what the Tass editor wrote,, with that being their only source of information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It informs about TASS and about what people said. How many times does someone use some racist epithets and create an article-worthy controversy? This is just another type of surprising speech leading to international curiosity. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it DIDNT create curiosity. After the initial "ha ha ha - TASS is The Weekly World News" no reliable sources have apparently done or said anything beyond that initial joke. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After some ha ha's about Tass' "bizarre metamorphosis" into "supermarket-tabloid sensationalism" [32] the NYT along with everyone else dropped the story. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - or more accurately WP:NOTEVENNEWSJUSTLAZYJOURNALISTSFILLERFLUFF AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You cannot assume that ~~the~~ corrupt journalists made the story up out of laziness. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - so we assume there is even a grain of truth? WP:REDFLAG- we would certainly need more more and better sources than 1 TASS story and some US papers quoting it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to UFO sightings in Russia. The real story here always was the fact that TASS not only picked up the story but gave it a lot of coverage. But, taken that way, the story did attract a lot of international coverage at the time (and to some extent since), both as an indication of widespread credence given in Russia to UFO sightings and the willingness of the Soviet media under glasnost to move away from traditional Marxist-Leninist standards of news reporting. (Though, to be honest, UFO sightings in Russia could do with a fairly thorough rewrite, from the current rather short list of sightings to an article focussing on belief in UFO sightings by some Russians as a social phenomenon.) PWilkinson (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very appropriate suggestion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a good compromise solution. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim of notability is not even referenced D P 09:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hoax or not? (I don't believe in UFOs at all, nor I am a fan of the topic, for what it's worth) Such considerations for notability are irrelevant. It has been covered in multiple RS, especially ufology books (and well, what else should cover UFO sightings?), so WP:NOTNEWS definitely does not apply: this is not routine news at all. See [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. --cyclopia^speak! 17:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG requires coverage in reliable sources. UFOlogy books certainly dont qualify. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are specialized sources on the topic. I may disagree with their conclusions on it,and I do -they are surely *biased*- but this doesn't make them any less useful for article writing and notability purposes. Biased sources are still RS. --cyclopia^speak! 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - thats a completely unsupportable position: "There are no reliable sources about this fringe topic so we should be able to use non-reliable sources because they are the ones that talk about this fringe topic." Nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per WP:NOTNEWS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Gentlemen! - I have scrubbed and buffed and will keep going for a little while this evening. I would also like to turn your attention to the utter hilarity of this thing. I believe this one definitely stands out as news. When the official communist newspaper tries to push it on you, and the Interior Ministry says they're ready to go hunt this thing, I think we've got ourselves some notability. Also, it was part of the super-stupid attempt by the Soviets to "be open" - because that's what open meant.... Anyway! Please do not salt without attempting to improve because the premise is laughable! And please do not look at the fine fair-weather coverage. It was in depth, the government took it ridiculously seriously, and I have the added joy of mentioning that radioactive isotopes don't mean jack!

I hope you will reconsider. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions that this has any political significance are entirely unsupported by sources, and thus of no relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you need to try and be more polite - and also more clear, because I'm not sure you're making your point very well. Assertions in deletion discussions do not need reliable sources to back them up, because deletion discussions are not articles. That is why there is no reference section in a deletion discussion, and why we allow opinions in deletion discussions, such as your opinion above. In this case, however, there are sources which back up what Panyd is saying: the Interior Ministry stated that they were going to deploy troops if necessary to counter any threat. UFOs in the cold war were not seen as "crazy aliens only seen by madmen" as they are today, but were instead seen as a real, unexplainable phenomenon that could pose a serious threat to the Soviet Union (or indeed, to NATO). I will go into this further in my keep vote below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me)

Keep: I am all for getting rid of pseudo-scientific articles, as I believe are others here, but this article is not pseudo-scientific. It reports exactly what witnesses said had happened, and it debunks the report as well. The incident itself seems to have generated an awful lot of secondary coverage, such as here, and this Fire Officer's Handbook devotes most of a chapter to War and UFOs, with a fair chunk on Vorozenh. The Skeptical Enquirer writes about it, even. It's clear that this event, whether a hoax or not, whether real or fake, whether sourced with a multitude of sources or with only one or two, has had a clear and ongoing effect on the "ufologist" community, and by that standard alone, it should be included. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chase me ladies. The coverage satisfies GNG and the effects on a significant subculture (of ufology) were significant. While I share a healthy skepticism (even a dislike) for the topic, that should not color the decision regarding its inclusion. Xoloz (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The ridiculous socking has been a detriment to this discussion, and is shameful. Based on a review of all the comments, there are appropriate policy-based comments in both directions. At this point, I'm finding there to be NO CONSENSUS to either keep or delete at this time D P 18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Attacks[edit]

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

Non-notable online video campaign. Lacks multiple reliable sources specifically about the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, numerous sources available, about the subject well meeting GNG, this is a clean-up issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
- ~~Dodd, Tracey. "The role of broadband in the quest for environmental sustainability." Telecommunications Journal of Australia 57.2/3 (2007).~~

~~numerous sources available, about the subject, well meeting GNG, this is a clean-up issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
- These, again, are about Greenwald and not the subject. This might be an argument for a merger. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree with your assessment. And this was always going to be either a keep or merge as there is a parent article that this is tied to, so there was no reason to delete. Let's see what others have to say. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    - There actually isn't a parent article to point this at currently. You can disagree with my assessment, but part of discussion is explaining why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's right there in the first sentences -

Fox Attacks is a 2007-08 viral video campaign [...] produced [...] in conjunction with their 2004 full-length documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.

- - - - So Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is the defacto parent article. There remains no reason to remove any of this content. The only question is can it be a good article, or does everything need to be merged to the parent article until its later spun out. I see no reason to not allow it to be on its own, and I think there are plenty of sources covering this subject to at least a GNG level. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
        And yet those sources aren't coming. There's no evidence that Outfoxed is related to Fox Attacks outside of the same person running both. A merger to Greenwald might make sense given the slight mentions in some of the sources you link above, but that's it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~They are even if you don't seem to like them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
        NB: Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is certainly significant amount of secondary source coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaBella242 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Fox Attacks has a multitude of coverage, enough for it to have its own article. In my opinion there is too much differing content for it to be merged smoothly with Outfoxed, although it could be made to work, and is still preferrable to deletion. Greedo 8 17:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the pile-on about secondary coverage is not examining what this coverage is. For example, The Fox Effect, linked above, does not mention the Greenwald effort once. Another book, The Republican Noise Machine, predates the Greenwald effort by three years (an issue that will go for any source purporting to be about this campaign that predates its 2007 launch). The closing administrator should take care in noting the way these sources are being misrepresented in this discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are used as references in the article, they're being mentioned here only as references to the subject as a whole, not about Fox Attacks specifically. Greedo 8 18:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are references about Fox Attacks to understand notability and to build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 9 references: 1 about Outfoxed, 1 is the channel on Youtube, and 7 others illustrate notability and are used to build the article. I'm not sure what the issue you have is, could you be more specific? Greedo 8 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and understand what are reliable sources for information. Blog posts, press releases, those aren't what we need. A single line citation of "for example see Fox Attacks the Environment" does not show notability or give us anything to build off of. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So your only problem is the type of sources that are used. Maybe this would have been better suited to a discussion on the article's talk page instead of immediately pursuing deletion. An out-of-the-blue proposition for deletion seems to be an overreaction, please see WP:Before. Greedo 8 19:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the lack of reliable sources about the topic, which is grounds for deletion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, subject has plenty of reliable sources available, some on the article, some posted here, and others easily accessible for those who look. As noted above there is zero grounds for deletion, as this has a parent article. So the choices are to keep or merge, which seems silly since this is an acceptable stand-alone article on its own. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

So where are they? The sources you posted, some of them don't even mention the subject at all. Another is literally a five word citation in a little-seen academic paper. The choice to delete is not only on the table, but, as it stands, the most logical choice given the lack of reliable sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added 8 new independent sources, including NYT, LA Weekly (published by Village Voice), NBC, etc; confirming the link with Outfoxed, the notability of the viral video campaign, and a bunch of other statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanshuimom (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the actual reliable sources put into the article (as many were not), the NBC piece is an interview with Greenwald, never once mentions "Fox Attacks." The LA Weekly piece does not mention the movement, merely one video entitled "Fox attacks Obama." The New York Times piece is about the environmentalist movement and Home Depot, not about the video series (it only mentions the Fox Attacks the Environment video in passing). The lack of multiple, reliable sources about the subject that are required for notability and verifiability are still nonexistent, and we should not keep or delete an article based solely on what people's feelings on the subject are. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 18 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, → Call me Hahc21 03:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I closed this as keep because my impression is that consensus was leaning that way. However, I overlooked several details of importance that were outlined to me, and I decided to relist it instead. → Call me Hahc21 03:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A note: those details involve the now-indeffed sock above who posted a number of irrelevant links and passed them off as about the topic. Please keep this in mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Robert Greenwald. Seems to have some coverage, but it doesn't look like it'll ever be more than a sentence or two. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This topic has been addressed by the NY Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, AP, the LA Times, USA Today, PBS, the Huffington Post, academic writings from the University of Rochester and MIT, as well as scholarly books and a wide variety of lesser-known sources. I believe this should establish notability. If it is to be merged, it ought to go into Outfoxed, as it is part of the same campaign. Sanshuimom (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (struck the vote as a duplicate from before the relist, Hobit (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- Can you please share those sources? They don't seem to exist here or in the article. Also, this does not have any reliable sources linking it to Outfoxed, so it's a poor target. We need sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are in the article. Please look again. NYT is reference 10, SF Chronicle is 7, AP is 12, LAT is 4, USA Today is 8, PBS is 11, HP is 6, U Rochester is 5, MIT is 3 (Jump Cut is an MIT publication), Bloggers on the Bus is one of the books (ref 2). Beyond the Echo Chamber by Clark and Slyke is another book with references, but it's starting to get silly when I have 3-5 references for some of the statements, so I haven't added that one. Yet. Most of the refs are about political film/documentary in the Internet age or and/or left-right politics; most have a chapter (at most) or a couple of paragraphs about BNF/Greenwald/Fox Attacks. A couple just have a sentence or two that support a specific claim in the article. Nevertheless, the fact that this video series (and specific videos in the series) was/were sufficiently visible to garner mention (let alone get chapters in books and inches of column) in most of the major mainstream media outlets in the country affirm its notability. As for the Outfoxed links, you've deleted them a couple of times, but I'll dig 'em back up if other folks think it's necessary. Sanshuimom (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As noted, these are not sources specifically about the topic, which is required for notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fox Attacks is linked to Outfoxed on Outfoxed's own website. Greedo 8 16:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Covered Eric Boehlert (2009). Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press. Simon and Schuster. p. 14. ISBN 9781416560357. albeit briefly. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- The coverage is a grand total of [http://books.google.com/books?id=K5wnQVh18G4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=bloggers+on+the+bus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mVE0U9jpDKya0gH--YDgAg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22fox%20attacks%22&f=false 2 paragraphs in a 350 page book. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a lot of mainstream coverage. IonSmasher (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)— IonSmasher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, is there any article about controversities surrounding Fox News Channel? It would be a perfect target for a merging... Cavarrone 07:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fox News Channel controversies. I'm not sure if merging it to there is the best idea, but discussion about it wouldn't hurt. Greedo8 16:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not really a controversy if one guy is just agitating repeatedly. I'm not against a merger to Greenwald within reason, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:37, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Bushranger, I'm not sure I understand why you have relisted this again. Can you please clarify? It's been discussed for weeks. I have responded to objections and improved content and references repeatedly. I wasn't a math major, but I count 7 people (including me) that have said it has sufficient notability, references, major media coverage, etc to Keep (one was Keep/Merge). I'm not including sockpuppet guy, of course. There's one vote for merge. One single guy has come back at least 13 times in 2 weeks (by my count) to argue for deletion. I admire his tenacity, even though I disagree with his POV. I know it's not a question of majority rule, but a fair number of people have had a fair amount to say about policy, notability, sources and the validity thereof. This is the first of my articles that has been AfD, so maybe I don't understand the process. I'd be grateful if you'd tell me what more is needed to achieve consensus in this particular case. Sanshuimom (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert Greenwald or Delete. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep at issue really is the title of the article from what I can tell. Perhaps the organization is also an issue. But this is about a collection of videos and a number of the videos have reasonable coverage in RSes. So should they be joined together as part of a series? Seems like a reasonable organization thing for us to do. One issue to worry about is if we are doing OR to so group/name these videos. But as Greenwald defined the idea of the series and it's title including a website by that name, it's not OR. I view it as much the way we might choose to group a bunch of episodes of a show or songs on an album. Also Eric Boehlert's book (yes only two paragraphs) shows that the series had some impact as a series... Hobit (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy-based arguments certainly favour DELETE D P 18:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Maness[edit]

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

As yet unelected candidate in a future election, with no properly sourced indication that he passes WP:POLITICIAN at this time — article was previously prodded, but the creator subsequently requested restoration. As always, a candidate is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just for running in an election; with extremely rare exceptions, unless you can make a credible case that they were already notable enough for an article before running in the election, they do not become notable enough for an article until they win it (and the same standard applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican.) Delete unless somebody can properly source the notability of his military career; it can and will be recreated in due time if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Looking closer at he Notability guidelines, you are probably correct. I am going to see if I can find out if he holds an appropriate political office or has the proper military criteria. If neither is true, I am thinking a redirect to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Louisiana,_2014 would be appropriate. Khronos21 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable too. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for party nominations are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Louisiana does not have party nominations, it is a jungle primary. Maness, Mary Landrieua and Bob Cassidy are the 3 front-runners, but I think you are right that he would need more than that for notability. Under general notability guidelines, there are a lot of diverse news articles regarding him, and he has over 100k followers on Facebook, but I think his real case for notability comes from the fact that he is a Notable Military Personality. He commanded Kirtland Airforce Base in New Mexico, a "substantial body of troops" under "6" on Military Notability Guide. http://www.spencereveningworld.com/news/2010-06-01/Front_Page/Skys_The_Limit_For_Former_Fair_Queen__Colonel_Robe.html This command was over 23,000 military personnel, which is larger than a division, the low end measure for "substantial body of troops". Thoughts?Khronos21 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with counting stuff. The number of followers a person has on Facebook or Twitter or YouTube or wherever is irrelevant to whether they're notable enough or not, and the number of people who were under their employment or military command or whatever is relevant only insofar as you can properly demonstrate that they've received a significant degree of reliable source coverage for things they did while in command of that many soldiers/employees, and not just because you can assert any particular number of soldiers/employees by itself without any further context for why that number matters.

Rather, the only aspect of notability that can be quantified as a "countable" number is the volume of reliable sourcing you can or cannot add to properly support a Wikipedia article.

The Spencer Evening World is a small community newspaper in a town with a population of only 2,000 or so — I kid you not, I just checked its website and its lead story in today's edition was a local high school student writing an "OMG I'm almost graduating!" fluff piece — so it doesn't meet our standards for reliable sourcing. If there really are a "lot of diverse news articles regarding him" and the Spencer Evening World isn't actually the best you can come up with, then adding those diverse references to the article would potentially help boost his notability and keepability, but it's about the volume and quality of sourcing you can add, and not about how many people are or aren't following him on social media. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I will cite other articles in various topics on him to see what is thought. Any tips on proper citing for an AfD page, or should I just put the links with a brief summary of content? I realized that article was a small source, but I cited it because it specifically referenced the number of troops in his command, and his classification as Mayor of Kirtland Airforce Base. Khronos21 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations: I realize the below cites are not in proper format, but I was not sure if proper citation format was required for a AfD Talk Page. I figure they can be cleaned up if it is decided to keep the article. Also, as a disclosure, I am the creator of the article, and I am from New Mexico, where Rob Maness was Commander of Kirtland Airforce Base. I do not know him though, and I am not connected to him.

Print

http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123267781 (Establishes that Maness was Commander of Kirtland AFB, which when taken with the article cited above, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_Air_Force_Base, as to the size of the base, would seem to indicate Miitary Person Notability)

http://news.yahoo.com/an-army-of-ted-cruzes--louisiana-candidate-takes-a-page-from-a-tea-party-hero-175910493.html (Retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness is making a play for a U.S. Senate seat)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/conservative-group-skips-bill-cassidy-endorses-rob-maness-in-louisiana-senate-race/article/2538007 (Conservative group skips Bill Cassidy, endorses Rob Maness in Louisiana Senate race)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/6/maness-reports-raising-240000-for-us-senate-race/ (Maness reports raising $240,000 for US Senate race)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/abcs-14-for-14-hot-seat-meet-mary-landrieus-tea-party-challenger-rob-maness/ (Kick off election season with interview of Maness)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/31/2014-could-be-the-longest-election-season-ever.html (2014 Could Be The Longest Election Season Ever, Maness, Cassidy and Landrieu are the jungle primary candidates)

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/200259-maness-i-would-have-opposed-katrina-relief-bill (Federal Spending and Katrina Relief)

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/03/rob_maness_the_other_senate_ca.html (Rob Maness, the other Senate candidate)

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gop-senate-candidate-people-losing-insurance-email-me_766393.html (Article about request for emails from people losing insurance)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/02/us/politics/senate-races-to-watch-in-2014.html?_r=0 (citing Maness and Cassidy as the Jungle Primary Candidates in Louisiana, see footnote)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/politics/republican-incumbents-senate/ (general tratement of mainstream vs teaparty candidates, mentions Maness briefly)

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20140326/NEWS/303260034/Sen-Mary-Landrieu-Increase-U-S-natural-gas-exports-compete-Russia?nclick_check=1 (Maness quoted)

Radio and TV

Fox 14, TV Segment, http://www.myarklamiss.com/story/d/story/senate-candidate-rob-maness-visits-twin-cities/20864/o-PHtJvUEUmgsBwCnQLKcg

KTAL NBC 6, TV Interview, http://www.arklatexhomepage.com/story/d/story/republican-senate-candidates-cassidy-and-maness-st/32343/R7cRvtneA0-MKqDT9gcpnw

KNOE 8, TV Segment, http://www.knoe.com/category/178698/video-landing-page?clipId=9957578&topVideoCatNo=127380&autoStart=true

Exceptional Conservative Show, Radio Interview, starts at 12:00, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theexceptionalconservativeshow/2014/03/18/louisiana-conservative-rob-maness-on-the-exceptional-conservative-show

Moon Griffon Show, Radio Interview, starts at 28:00, http://moongriffon.com/shows/moonwed.mp3

Doc Thompson Show, Radio Interview, https://soundcloud.com/docthompson/the-morning-blaze-with-doc-257

-Khronos21 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the citations into the article would bolster your case much more effectively than listing them here does. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I was planning on doing it, but I was not sure if I should list them here first. This is my first AfD talk, and I couldn't find AfD citation guidance in the help pages. I will get them up either tonight or tomorrow.Khronos21 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relist. I have gone through the page over the last 2 days and tried to integrate as much as possible as to what I think it should look like. I placed a major emphases on his military commands and career, since I think that is his strongest case for notability.Khronos21 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Even if he were the party nominee this would at best get a redirect to an article about the election itself. I'm pretty sure that even being a full colonel in the USAF isn't enough to justify an article on his own; this kind of command is typical at that level, not remarkable. Mangoe (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no party primary in Louisiana, but I still think that his notability arises from number 6 in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. He was commander and mayor of Kirtland Air Force Base, where he commanded over 23,000 military personnel, which is larger than a division, the low end of measure for "substantial body of troops".Khronos21 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources that have been added so far, I'm still seeing only a modest volume of sourcing, which still (a) relies disproportionately on coverage of his candidacy itself (which, again, is not a notability claim that justifies a Wikipedia article), (b) doesn't offer nearly enough sourcing to properly demonstrate notability as a military commander (which, again, is not a case of "commanded X number of troops = automatically in", if you can't demonstrate that he garnered substantive coverage for specific things he did while in military command), (c) relies entirely too much on cursory mentions of his name in overview coverage of the race and not nearly enough on substantive coverage about him, and (d) cites Breitbart (not a reliable source) and Combat Veterans for Congress (not an independent source). So no, "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources" still has not been properly demonstrated as things currently stand. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize Breitbart.com was not considered a reliable source. I am having a hard time tracking down additional military related articles due to the significant coverage of his campaign (I went 15 pages deep in Google and gave up, because although many articles talk about his Military Career and his heroics during 9/11, they seem to mostly talk about his campaign). However, under Wikipedia:Notability (people), Politicians, "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". The many cited articles seem for the most part to be reliable, independent and provide significant coverage, which would seem to meet primary notability.Khronos21 (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion doesn't confer notability on a candidate who garners media coverage only in the context of their candidacy itself — since the media are obligated to give "equal time" coverage to all candidates in a campaign, there's no such thing as a candidate who doesn't get media coverage at all, and so defining the criterion that broadly would cause us to have to accept every article about every candidate in every race. What's demanded, rather, is coverage that properly demonstrates that he was already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate — in order for a candidate to become wikinotable for the candidacy itself, the candidacy would have to turn into a media frenzy along the lines of what happened to Christine O'Donnell (which I'm sure nobody wishes for). Bearcat (talk) 04:52, 9 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 Parker Pen Company. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Vector[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this meets the GNG, not independent sources of value, just some pictures and website picture. No indication of why this should be separate from Parker Pens. The old AFD was kept, but the arguments given were poor: amount of Google results is meaningless, and not one reliable source was given to keep the article. There has been a merge tag on the article since December, so either delete or merge. Mat ty.007 13:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parker Pens. This is a well-known line of especially fountain pens, among fountain pen enthusiasts. There is a piece in the New York Times that discusses the US political significance of the Parker Vector pen. There exist sources such as Parker Vector, and Parker Vector 1981-Present, which being among said fountain pen enthusiasts, I consider reliable, but they may not be up to WP:GNG standards. Nonetheless, basic facts about these pens are verifiable and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, merging of verifiable content is preferred to deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parker Pen Company. Fails WP:GNG on its own. The page for Parker Pen Company already features information on products akin to this page, so merging should be able to occur rather seamlessly. HOT WUK (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parker Pen Company. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 9 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panyd (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Motoyama[edit]

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

Can not find any reliable references. No books mention his work and the only websites that do are his own or new age blogs. Goblin Face (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuasa references Motoyama in his "The Body, Self-Cultivation, and Ki-Energy", which is in English. Corazza also references him in "Near-Death Experiences: Exploring the Mind-Body Connection." Conley's "Sahaja Yoga" also explicitly works with Motoyama's writings. Bourne's "Global shift" addresses Motoyama too. At least a dozen books on the chakras reference him as well. A cursory jstor search reveals at least three more references to Motoyama in reputable academic journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.234.34 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those books on "Ki-energy" and the "Mind-Body" connection are unreliable fringe new age books. "Chakra" books are not reliable either. You then claim "academic" journals mention his work and cite JSTOR, but do a search for "Hiroshi Motoyama" in JSTOR and not a single paper comes up. Basically no reliable references cite his work and there's no critical coverage of his claims or mention of his work in any mainstream or notable sources. Goblin Face (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just did a search on JSTOR and a number of articles came up. None, however, as far as I could tell, talk about him for more than a sentence or two. But here are some:
- The Aura of Wellness: Subtle-Energy Healing and New Age Religion; Author(s): Catherine L. Albanese; Source: Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Winter,2000), pp. 29-55 [38] Mentioned on p. 31.
- Curing with Kaji: Healing and Esoteric Empowerment in Japan; Pamela D. Winfield; Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2005), pp. 107-130 [39] Mentioned on p. 123
- Sahaja Yoga by Judith Coney; Review by: Christopher Key Chapple; International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Apr., 1999), pp. 93-95 [40] This is the most promising because it is a book review that faults the author for not citing Motoyama
- JSTOR also mentions that he is cited in the book Yoga, karma, and rebirth, which can be searched on Google Books: [41]

Note that all three journals and the book are published by respectable academic publishers. I am not sure myself at this time how to evaluate people bordering on WP:FRINGE for WP:GNG, but I first wanted to mention that it is not true that he is not cited in JSTOR. Michitaro (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment When I do a search for his name in JSTOR it says "No results found" [42]. Not sure what is going on there but the references you cited don't appear to discuss his work in any detail. I would like to know others thoughts on this. Goblin Face (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. When I click on the link you gave, I did get the results I mentioned above. Anyway, you are right that one of the issues is whether these RS--and they are clearly RS--are "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. I would lean to saying no, but I do recognize that people in the legitimate academic community are sometimes quoting him as an authority, not as a fringe figure. Also, while there are plenty of WP:FRINGE works on "ki" and "chakra," they are also some very legitimate works as well, because those are long-standing, accepted concepts in the East, so we have to be careful of dismissing all of them at once. I also added the Japanese source template because he might be discussed in legitimate Japanese sources as well. I am undecided now, but I feel some more expert opinion is needed, so I will add deletion sorting with religion and Hinduism. Michitaro (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The books look flaky, and when I investigated one (with the grandiose and highly improbable title of "Measurements of Ki Energy Diagnoses & Treatments: Treatment principles of Oriental Medicine from an Electrophysiological Viewpoint"), the publisher appears as "California Inst. for Human Science", and a google search for this shows up *this* page (I mean Hiroshi Motoyama). So it's all a whirlpool. His Japanese WP page looks OK, but I see that his J publications appear to be from 宗教心理出版 (sounds like a real publisher), but again I ended up at Rakuten Books searching for this publisher, and in the first two pages (40 hits?), only 4 were not by him, and one of these had his name in the title. Even so, I think inclusiveness calls for this to stay. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you search for the publisher The content

Weak delete. There is no reason why fringe operators should not have Wikipedia BLPs if they are notable enough. The subject's book has 92 cites on GS. My feeling is not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 06:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 2 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) 22:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne University SC[edit]

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

Low level amateur soccer club. Has never played at the top level of state league. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Hack (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 04:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 04:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:FOOTYN, played in a national cup.--2nyte (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – has played in the qualifying rounds of the FFA Cup but I don't feel that satisfies FOOTYN, as 620 teams took part in this year's qualifying competition for 22 places in the actual tournament. GNG is clearly not met. C 679 10:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Playing in a qalifying round is not enough per WP:FOOTYN, which is a WikiProject's out-dated essay anyway. Giant Snowman 12:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Giant Snowman 12:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS, GNG is most important. FOOTYN might be outdated and an essay, but its principles still apply here, the FFA cup is regional until the round of 32, by FOOTYN, it is only a national competition once a club reaches that stage. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is our policy on the FA Cup? I thought any team that took part got an article? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FA Cup is national at all stages though is it not? There are no regional qualifying rounds, so a club has participated at a national level regardless of the level of progress made in the competition. Fenix down (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Melbourne University, they reached the final 64 of the Dockerty Cup. Only the final four of this competition play in the FFA Cup. Hack (talk) 07:22, 9 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) 10:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Andrigo[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. unreferenced for other 6 years. ambassadors are not inherently notable. only coverage I found is routine merely confirming his role in one line. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassadors are, in my opinion, generally notable as very senior officials of their country and their country's chief representative in other countries. Most of those who have been brought to Afd have been kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they are not inherently notable and still need significant in depth coverage which this one sorely lacks. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and I disagree on this score, as you know. I believe they are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherent" notability exists on Wikipedia only insofar as the inherent sourceability of that topic does — for instance, presidents of the United States are "inherently" notable, but only in the sense that it's absolutely impossible for a person to hold that role at all without garnering more than enough verifiable coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article regardless of whether the position confers "inherent" notability or not. In other words, the only way a topic can be "inherently" notable is if the class of topic is so solidly and indisputably sourceable that the "inherently" part is a moot point. Likewise, diplomats are not "inherently" notable just for being diplomats, if their articles are not properly sourced as such — no class of topic ever gets to claim "inherent" notability as an exemption from Wikipedia's requirements around verifiability in reliable sources, and diplomats are not a class of topic in which all people who have ever been diplomats are always sourceable enough to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A closing admin is far more likely to pay attention if you can demonstrate if WP:BIO or WP:DIPLOMAT is demonstrated as being met through sources provided. LibStar (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, this is an Afd, in which opinions are valid. Secondly, as you very well know, most Afds on ambassadors have been closed as keep, despite your attempts to the contrary. Thirdly, as far as I'm concerned, given their high status, keeping articles on ambassadors, certainly those of major countries, is purely a matter of common sense and is a complete no-brainer. Fourthly, please stop citing WP:DIPLOMAT as if such a thing actually existed! It's merely a redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (people) (which actually says bugger all about ambassadors apart from they're not covered by WP:POLITICIAN), just as WP:BIO is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Wikipedia:Notability (people) did contain a statement specifically about the notability of diplomats until earlier this year, until it was removed pending the outcome of an as-yet-unresolved discussion on the talk page about whether it should be revised. And even that discussion offers nothing even approaching the suburbs of a consensus that all ambassadors are "inherently" notable — the closest thing to a consensus there is that we should grant a presumption of notability, which is still not actually the same thing as "inherence", to a country's primary representative at the United Nations. The nominator may not have been aware of that change (I certainly wasn't), but it is absolutely not the case that the notability guidelines for people have never contained any content about diplomats, nor that there's any emerging consensus that ambassadors are automatically notable enough to trump the WP:RS rule. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't say there was any such consensus. I merely said most recent AfDs have been closed as keep, which is entirely true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to the original post in this thread, it's a misconception that ambassadors are necessarily "very senior officials". Australian ambassadors to small or relatively unimportant posts are typically middle-management level officers who'd lead a team of only 6-8 people (or less) during rotations to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's headquarters in Canberra. I believe that this is standard practice for most countries (if you look at the career path of a career diplomat in an important post they've normally spent time as the ambassador to at least one less important post when they were at a much lower rank). Most Australian ambassadors are at the Executive Level 2 or lower Senior Executive Service levels, which aren't considered particularly senior positions. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 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 10:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ – See the citations I've added just now; he's had some bits of significant coverage over the years. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are the sources in-depth about him as a subject or do they contain one line mentions merely confirming his role? LibStar (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to verify four of the five through the web databases that I have access to via the Toronto Public Library (Hill Times being the only outlier at this point), and all four of them are one-line mentions acknowledging his existence and verifying the ambassadorial postings, but failing to be about him in a substantial enough way to get him past WP:GNG on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bearcat for your work on verification. I noticed you haven't actually formally !voted yet. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill Times article confirms his postings as Deputy High Commission to New Delhi, and as Ambassador to the Republic of Latvia and Estonia, nothing significant beyond that. Would it be worth merging any content to Canada–Latvia relations (currently an article with no citations)? Ambassador of Canada to Latvia seems to be his most significant posting. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any merge because you could also argue he could be merged to Canada-Estonia relations. But the fact no one can find any evidence of a notable contribution to bilateral relations means this article should be deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize there are some good reasons why the consensus is against me, so I am striking my "weak keep" recommendation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, a list of the people who've held this position would be a valid Wikipedia contribution (as well as a potential redirect target); even if we can't properly source a standalone biographical article about every individual person who held it, there's still some value in Wikipedia maintaining some sort of information about the position. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 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, slakr^\ talk / 04:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to provide in-depth coverage of this person. As none of the diplomatic postings he's held are particularly high profile there seems to be no reason to assume that such coverage would exist. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to keep what is really a very weak stub. Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bearcat's comment above and his review of the sources added. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per point 4 of wp: politician, ambassadors aren't presumably notable. Personally, I'd probably say that ambassadors to major countries probably are generally notable (e.g. Canada-US, Canada-Mexico, etc.), but being the Canadian ambassador to the Baltic countries doesn't seem like a particularly important position. Additionally, based on the article titles, most of the sources don't seem like they would provide significant coverage specifically on Andrigo. Orser67 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just for the record, WP:POLITICIAN #4 isn't meant to be a blanket statement about the automatic non-notability of all diplomats as a class; it's just meant to specify that POLITICIAN isn't the standard by which a diplomat's notability or lack thereof is judged. The same umbrella guideline actually formerly contained a separate section for judging the notability of diplomats, although it's currently stripped from the article pending talk page discussion to establish consensus for a revision. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of sourcing just isn't actually there to support an independent standalone article here — and Wikipedia's standard has always been that diplomats are not all automatically notable just for being diplomats, if the sourcing isn't there. If somebody's willing to take the time to track the information down, I would fully support a list of people who've held this position, but if all we can confirm about an individual ambassador in reliable sources is the mere fact that he was named to the position, then we don't need a separate standalone bio. Delete, or redirect to a non-biographical list of the ambassadors if somebody can track down enough information to start one. (Also note that since he's the only entry in Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Latvia, Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Lithuania and Category:Ambassadors of Canada to Estonia, all three of those will also have to be deleted as empty categories.) Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 6 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 06:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emi Fontana[edit]

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

Article subject lacks notability. See WP:BIO. The numerous cited sources hugely fail WP:RS being advertising, blogs, affiliated, or self published works. Most mention the subject only in passing or not at all. A Google search failed to yield any significant RS sources. Article is a naked WP:PROMO piece by a WP:SPA. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: maybe the subject could have some notability (eg. this article from Il Sole 24 Ore or this one from The Huffington Post) but I agree with the nominator's concerns about WP:PROMO and about the SPA/COI creator, so probably WP:TNT is the best choice here (for now). Cavarrone 21:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a fair amount about her or her work. "Emi Fontana" site:nytimes.com, "Emi Fontana" site:.it, "Emi Fontana" site:.latimes.com. Agree with Cavarrone content issues can be worked out editing the article. -- GreenC 23:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Most of the curation was of the works of Mike Kelley (artist), who is certainly notable. But Kelley's most important shows were not curated by Fontana. There might be a case for a sentence or two in Kelley's article though. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This curator has a lot of mentions on ArtForum and other major art magazines if you check Highbeam. 5deadlydaisies — Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC) — 5deadlydaisies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:16, 2 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 Disneyland. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Soundsational Parade[edit]

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

Procedurally nominating; had been tagged with an AfD template pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival of Fantasy Parade, but was not actually included in the discussion. slakr^\ talk / 03:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article about a non-notable parade. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival of Fantasy Parade for a functionally identical AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Redirect to Disneyland? Not a very likely search term, but as the saying goes, redirects are cheap. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MelanieN. Northern Antarctica ₵ 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flights of Fantasy Parade[edit]

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

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

Delete Promotional article about a non-notable parade. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival of Fantasy Parade for a functionally identical AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting historical significance per WP:EVENTCRIT. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 2 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 01:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Caradus[edit]

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

A biography written by someone close to the subject. The subject's military service does not satisfy WP:MILPEOPLE, his service as a teacher and principal does not satisfy WP:SCHOLAR and his OBE is not sufficiently high to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. WWGB (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. The tone of the nomination is quite unnecessarily aggressive and tries to present this as a black and white issue when really it's one of the 50 shades of grey. OBE just pushes into notability, IMHO. WP:BLP doesn't apply. WP:SCHOLAR is also irrelevant because he wasn't a research academic but rather a school teacher/administrator - WP:GNG applies instead and he appears to pass this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only the OBE has an independent source, the rest presumably depends on a book written by a family member which we can't read to verify. There is nothing else about him, I don't think an OBE and family bio make him notable enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Obituaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Doesn't really seem to make the threshold. Senior positions but not quite high enough. General tone and references obviously a problem but I think even if those were fixed wouldn't qualify - SimonLyall (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as it is currently is seriously flawed: it is written in the style of an obituary, not an encyclopedic article, and there is a lack of reliable sources. However, the subject does seem to be notable, and so, in my opinion, the page should be kept, and should undergo a major review. Improve where possible, and if impossible, then delete. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please refer to all the additional references now added which support the information provided. I would appreciate your favorable consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandjoy (talk • contribs) 00:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC) [— Davidandjoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The article as it stands is poor and poorly referenced, but an OBE is a significant award for service, and even on a quick search he does have mention in the Official history of New Zealand in the Second World War, 1939-1945 for his contribution to pilot training. In addition there are some bibliographical accounts in the newspapers of the period about him NealeFamily (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that we have never held the OBE alone to confer notability (although the next level up, the CBE, would), although it is a contributing factor. I'm offering no opinion on whether his other achievements make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that a Mil OBE for war service, is a very notable award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandjoy (talk • contribs) 23:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC) — Davidandjoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DavidandJoy you have said on the talk page that you are related to Edward Caradus - that is a clear conflict of interest. While I support retaining the article on its own merits you and the participants in this debate need to be aware of that. While Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, it does have rules for everyones protection. Please abide by them. NealeFamily (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially it isn't. It was (and is) very commonly awarded to low- and middle-ranking officers for distinguished war service and is lower in precedence than the DSO, and we would expect at least two DSOs for any form of automatic notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, sorry. My name is David Caradus and I am the grandson of Edward Caradus.
- I'll bet you didn't expect all this when you set out to glorify your grandfather! WWGB (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice subject but if we go by above discussion whereas OBE does not pass WP:GNG, I do not see the evidence of general notoriety. Certainly does not pass WP:ACADEMIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is "notoriety" the word you want to use? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. He appears to have made an important contribution in WWII, evidenced by the honour; but the article needs to be properly referenced.Rick570 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article has been revised and with better referencing added, if anyone wants to review their positions. NealeFamily (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no substantive sources talking at length about him except one obituary, which doesn't even indicate which newspaper it's from. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you clearly haven't checked the references in the article NealeFamily (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. One newspaper article. Not enough IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response There are 6 newspaper articles cited, several books, and several Government publications in the references. NealeFamily (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not enough for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Response The notability guideline requires Significant coverage and goes on to state that this is coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I think the coverage is sufficient enough to cross that threshhold. No orginal research was required for the information in the article, with there being sufficient secondary sources.

There are two things he did which, I believe, make him notable. The first is that he was the first person to establish a formalised pre-entry course for Air Force pilots during World War 2 (his course was taken up by other airforces (RAAF and RCAF) or used as the basis for their own programmes (RAF)) and secondly that, in a New Zealand context, his contribution to setting up trade technical training was also significant pioneering work.

I note the debate as to whether or not an OBE is significant enough. To my knowledge the OBE is a reasonably significant award and surely enough for Notability in conjunction with the above, in the context of an educationalist rather than military personnel.NealeFamily (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These things are your personal opinions. For them to be accepted as a valid argument in Wikipedia they need to be sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Response Happy to quote sources. Which of the above statement do you want cite ref'd? I am fairly sure all that I have done above is state information that is already in the articles sources without getting too carried away. NealeFamily (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prove them all. Start with justification for your claim that OBE confers notability by Wikipedia strtandards. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

All? The article has the sources for all, so refer to its ref list. But on the matter of an OBE confering notability, The only items that discuss them on the notability talk page reach inconclusive results. Personally, I think that an OBE by itsself is unlikely to sufficient. However, when looking at the sum of all the information in a bio it does add to its weighting in favour of notability because it is more than a passing recognition of that persons achievements by his/her peers or contemporaries. As an aside, it would be useful to find out if there has been any more specific debate about the sufficiency of this and similar awards. Here is a link to the most recent debate I have found Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2014#The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.. I also took a quick bit of research into the number of OBE's awarded - over 100,000 since inception in 1917, making it in my mind definitely too common for notability on its own. So in conclusion, I agree with you that the OBE on its own does not confer notability, but I still support the inclusion of this article for the reasons I previously outlined. NealeFamily (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why are criteria like MILPEOPLE being discussed, when the subject easily passes GNG? This article is very well supported by reliable, independent sources - in part because New Zealand has comprehensive archives for many of its newspapers - and its contributors are to be congratulated for their research. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the article at the time of nomination, I can understand why, but now only GNG is relevant. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. It looked more like a copy of an obituary at the time of nomination, but now it looks like an encyclopedia article, and passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 9 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 01:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jela Mihailovic[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. Author has COI with other music related articles as noted on their talk page. I'm unable to find a connection with this subject though. C1776M ^Talk 13:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 12 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person, there are lot sources about her, awards, article can be better, but she is notable. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you share some of those sources or add them to the unsourced article so we can review them? Thanks! C1776M ^Talk 16:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, look:

Širom zatvorenih očiju 2012
Sanre Entertainment Announces the North American Launch for Internationally Awarded and Acclaimed Cellist Jela (Mihailovic) Cello
Violončelistkinja Jelena Mihailović nagrađena za dopinos umetnosti (FOTO) (VIDEO)
Jelena Mihajlović: Posle Džejms Bonda prašina se slegla
Fame & Philanthropy Organized Stars to Speak to CITY's Youth Entrepreneurship Program About Project of Life Changing Experiences the Day Before Their Event
Kako mi je izmakao Džems Bond

And more of those also! Some sources are under Jelena Mihailović, her full name! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:09, 2 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 01:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Houghton International[edit]

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

None of the items mentioned in the article (a couple of mentions in trade journals, and a nomination for a non-notable award) make this company notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I now have 4 quality independent sources linking directly to the organisation; The Journal (consumer media), AEMT the international trade association for Electrical and Mechanical trades (see pages 18-21), Intellectual Property Office (IPO) the United Kingdoms patent authorities recognition of innovation and intellectual property and the UK national Rail Business Awards 2013, a long standing annual awards event for the UK rail industry.

In addition at NawlinWiki's request, I deleted the section about 'Products and Services' though I couldn't understand the reason why as it was a brief description of the products and services Houghton International provide. Also as requested I removed two regional business awards which were deemed non notable despite external references linking directly to the company.

Since this page is being considered for deletion by NawlinWiki for being non notable, reviewing the article history I can see a number of amends have been made, specifically additional tags, cleanup, removal of duplication and delsort, however contributors have spent time and effort to improve the article which I am grateful for and have thanked. However they have made no reference regarding deletion. I assuming that as the contributors have spent time and effort approving my article, they are in agreement that my article meets the criteria.

On a broader note, having looked at other articles there appears to be no consistency regarding the quality and quantity of references required. As a specific example of a company in a similar market sector, please see Sulzer, they detail 6 references: 1. Error, 2 and 3. Sulzer's Website, 4 and 5. No references to Sulzer i.e. no proof in content and 6. An individuals personal website, which may not meet WP:V?. None of which in my opinion meet the criteria.

Given the above, I feel like I am being singled out unfairly despite making all the suggested amends.

I would appreciate feedback on the points I have raised and welcome any further amends necessary.

Regards,

Cedric McMillan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric McMillan (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- I would like to hear more about the size of the company and its turnover. This may not be simple with a provate company. However it seems to operated in several fields and to have an overseas subsidiary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 17 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs don't establish notability - I checked them all. It appears to be a modest engineering firm. Szzuk (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:07, 2 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 01:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss India Worldwide 1991[edit]

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

In past Arinkit Das had created several articles with similar contents which was deleted by some or the other admins, recently I nominated Miss India Worldwide 1991 for deletion as it was seems to be a split from Miss India Worldwide even I wanted the contributor to merge the article into the suggested article but the deletion template was reverted by User:Kelapstick without contesting the deletion process but after some time I reverted back for which I was warned^{see here} by User:Yunshui for getting blocked. My concern is that if this matter is not interfered this will lead to creation of about 24 articles such as Miss India Worldwide 1990 to Miss Indian Worldwide 2014 and so on. WOWIndian ^Talk 12:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed a speedy deletion tag because the article was not eligible under A10 (as a copy and paste from Miss India Worldwide), as one article is about the pageant as a whole, and one is about a specific year. If there is an issue with Miss India Worldwide not being a notable contest, I think the deletion discussion should have started there rather than at a specific year. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying the speedy deletion criteria (A10) was not valid, but you could have converted it to most suitable one or informed me about it rather reverting it back. WOWIndian ^Talk 12:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no valid speedy deletion criteria. If there was I would have changed it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:30, 12 March 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 March 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep; Improper nomination, why is this article being nominated? Nominator gave no reasoning for the nomination besides a series of unrelated personal issues that have nothing to do with the article in question. Valoem ^talk 20:28, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "If we keep this article, we'll have many more articles!" Oh, horrors! --BDD (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally have no views either way - I try to avoid the beauty pageant stuff, but does the fact that the nominator has gotten themselves blocked permanently have any bearing on their AFD? Mabalu (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes yes, but in this case no. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:37, 7 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 01:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machel Waikenda[edit]

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

This article was forbidden when created, and is still forbidden today, per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

Article was first created by a man who is a secret paid advocate (a bad kind of paid editor) and blocked serial sockpuppeteer. It was then speedily deleted. The subject of the biography, Mr. Waikenda himself, said he'd pay to get it back. Freelancer.com user Sourov00 requested undeletion; the article was undeleted.

Despite Mr. Sourov's edits, the article is still promotional.

I have not checked to see whether or not there exists SIGCOV regarding Mr. Waikenda in RSes.

Dear Mr. Waikenda: Please stop paying people to write autobiographies of you on Wikipedia. It can backfire upon you badly: see User:Durova/The dark side. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 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 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some legitimate sourcing here. The article has a promotional tone, yes, but not to a G11 degree. Could the nominator explain more why the article should be deleted, with more comment on the content rather than the contributors? --BDD (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @BDD:

A) If a promotional article meets G11, we can speedily delete it. But, even if it doesn't meet G11, we can still delete it anyway. Even though this article doesn't meet WP:G11, I propose that it is still forbidden due to WP:NOT. And see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, which mentions WP:NOT.

B) We cannot consider only the content: we must also consider the contributors. As it says in Deuteronomy, "... a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise". Since this article was written by paid advocates, we must assume that — if any negative information about Mr. Waikenda exists — the writers have ignored it.

I think it is better not to leave a paid advocacy piece sitting live in mainspace — especially if it fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION — unless an unpaid Wikipedian has completed a careful search for negative information.

Dear reader:

Are you an unpaid Wikipedian willing to remove all promotional material? And are you willing to spend fifteen or twenty minutes looking online to see whether or not any negative information exists? If so, please indicate your intentions below, and let's incubate or userfy the article, in order to give you time to fix it. Otherwise, I still think we should delete the article. Maybe one day a neutral Wikipedian will write a new unbiased article from scratch.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a COI editor has made an acceptable article for bad reasons, punish the editor, not readers. You're still referring to WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, such as the article's tone. Can you speak directly to how it doesn't meet notability standards? --BDD (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My tack seems to be failing to convince you. Let me try a different tack. I clicked on the BBC ref, but saw only a passing mention of Mr. Waikenda. I clicked on "This is The Man Who Handles President Uhuru’s FB & Twitter Accounts", but am unconvinced that the source is an RS. I wonder if you could please point out two sources of SIGCOV which actually qualify as RSes? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:45, 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:54, 2 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 (G11, A7) by User:StephenBuxton. Gong show 20:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerry Series[edit]

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

Insufficient, if any, secondary source coverage. Fails WP:N on web content. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 02:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've nominated it for a speedy. While I don't think it's a hoax necessarily, I do want to note that there's zero talk about this anywhere, despite claims of multiple series and DVD sets. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CALPASC[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG - but maybe I am wrong! SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, you're not wrong. This run-of-the-mill lobbying group fails WP:ORG. All I could find in a search was press releases, no independent coverage at all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MelanieN. Jim Carter ^(talk) 15:43, 8 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, no claim to importance. No need to have a full AfD for a company without any claim to or evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Origin Records[edit]

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

Insufficient, if any, secondary source coverage. Google search returns no results. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 02:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Gonzalez[edit]

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

Plays for a team who are currently in the USL Premier Development League - an amateur football league. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 02:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:17, 3 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not fully professional, and players in the league don't automatically deserve articles. But it's semi-professional - not amateur. Nfitz (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – topic does not meet the standards of notability as given above. C 679 04:35, 9 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur[edit]

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

Non-notable clothing factory with insufficient secondary source coverage. Google search mostly turns out job recruitment sites. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 02:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A hundred year old factory of Ministry of Defence India . It is the largest industrial enterprise of the district and is very much notable.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs a rewrite, but seems to be notable in Indian military and industrial history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the earlier user. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:22, 5 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, no indication of importance, no evidence of any notability. A self-published book (indicated in this AfD) and being the CEO of a new, in itself not or barely notable branch of an organisation (why do they have a CEO? Isn't this normally a chairman, nothing more or less?), are not claims to importance. No need for a full AfD for this. Fram (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Zamyatin[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Published Book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohostan (talk • contribs) 08:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohostan (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 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 per WP:SNOW. Probably could have been put up for speedy deletion instead. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden wilson[edit]

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

Non-notable player from a minor league team that does not even have a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - a non-controversial speedy delete. 14-year-old player with no international caps, clearly does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Aspirex (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Cites zero sources or references, questionable notability. The article's appearance (sentences are in 2 or even 3 separate lines) also suggests information was simply copied and pasted from another website. M.Jormungand (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire and storm: This isn't even a "minor league" team, this is a boy playing for a local youth team. The only Wikipedia contribution of the SPA creator, I believe we can safely write this off as an April Fool's joke. Ravenswing 04:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Peridon per CSD G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Scream to the Last[edit]

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

The site in question is not the subject of multiple non-trivial works whose source is independent of the site itself. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would probably be speedyable as sheer promotion and as non-notable web content. I was going to clean it, but a search brought up nothing to show that this book/website currently passes notability guidelines and I figured we might as well give it a quick death rather than delay the inevitable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonpounou[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ging287 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY per nom--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with 1 teaspoon of salt, one-line article, and also wikipedia is not the world's biggest dictionary. --UpEpSilon (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 8 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abolfazl Monadi[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 00:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Bisswajit 08:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF, and a brief blurb at OVGuide (with no identifiable source) is far from sufficient for WP:GNG. Hqb (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing any category of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. One online video interview with the subject is far from enough for WP:GNG and we have no evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of academic or overall notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons articulated above Kabirat (talk) 08:53, 8 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 Redlands Unified School District. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redlands eAcademy[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This online school's district, Redlands Unified School District, is an obvious merge target. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gene93k. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Redlands Unified School District. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We'll consider this a soft delete.§FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MEF University[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Putative future university that has not opened it's doors yet. No independent refs. No native-language article to steal refs from. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 2 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. We'll consider this a soft delete.§FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldo Mariscotti[edit]

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

Spamicle tended by COI accounts, artist's representative(s). Persistent copyright violations and unsourced promotional content, with several group shows to credit and little indication of notability. JNW (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considering this a soft delete given lack of participation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Les Fossoyeurs du Rock[edit]

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

When searching [[43]] I do not see the nec resources to pass GNG. there may be sources in their language but I don't speak french. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:34, 2 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Om Entertainment[edit]

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

Sources given scarcely mention the company. Nothing else shows up in the searches I have conducted. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company exists and is the producer of some major Hindi films. References for the same are available. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film production company is actually notable and has produced some hit Bollywood films. It needs additional references instead of being deleted.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:57, 8 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. We'll consider this a soft delete §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pancakshari[edit]

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

I'm not seeing independent coverage of this concept, although it is entirely possible I'm just not looking in the right place. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:28, 2 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 01:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional symbiosis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Prodded as an unreferenced essay & non-notable term. PRod contested alleging that the article is referenced: not so. Horrible misuse of the word symbiosis. TheLongTone (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of the word symbiosis has grey areas online, and taking into account that I don't have a major in Psychology, I think I did a pretty accurate job of describing events that occur throughout symbiosis. Also, this article has been requested as "Emotional Symbiosis" so I've tried finding definitions that were closer to the word that the person who requested this article wanted. You can always edit things that you find to be wrong, but for the most part, this article is on the topic of Emotional Symbiosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiyaEstes (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should move it to something like "Psychological symbiosis" or "Symbiosis (psychology)" and it needs cleanup. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I'm going to edit more things on this page, but I wanted to get the main points down that I thought were related to Psychological Symbiosis — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiyaEstes (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:25, 2 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 01:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Place Dasmariñas[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. shopping malls are not inherently notable, only coverage merely confirms its existence or existence of certain shops in it. also nominating:

SM City Masinag
SM City Calamba
SM City Novaliches LibStar (talk) 05:54, 19 March 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 March 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SM City Masinag, SM City Calamba and SM City Novaliches are nominated but the articles were not tagged for AfD. They are tagged now. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:22, 2 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). Of note is that two of the sources posted by User:Skr15081997 are independent reliable sources, specifically The Times of India and Indian Express sources. This is contrary to the notion that none of the sources posted by User:Skr15081997 are reliable (in the comment below the !vote). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rajan[edit]

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

Biogrpahical and seems balant marketing Shrikanthv (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joe Rajan seems to be notable.See here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7,Instead of being deleted the article needs to be cleaned up of unnecessary content.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:GNG. Most of your links are websites. Nothing there constitutes "significan coverage." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 2 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. We'll consider this one a soft delete §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Germain[edit]

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

Lots of online hits for sales for his provocatively named fragrances but I'm really struggling to find anything beyond the Globe and Mail article cited in the text. A few press releases, like 1 You'd think that with lines called "Sexual", he'd have attracted a lot more attention, even if from the sleazier press, but I REALLY can't see evidence beyond the one-off article to show he's got notability. Mabalu (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 2 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1Love[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, page created by a single-purpose account. Vectro (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to find any secondary sources with the search button at the top of this page --The ChampionMan 1234 04:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator, Mdecosta (talk · contribs), left this message on my talk page:

Hello! You are welcome to delete the 1Love.org page which you requested for removal from the site. I created it a while ago and have no ties or need to keep the page. I also don't use this site much, quite frankly, although I do appreciate everyone who contributes to it. Thank you and have a great day!

Delete Per comment/consent from page creator Rmosler | ● 05:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emergency! characters[edit]

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

Article about fictional characters that fails multiple Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion including verifiability, reliable sources. I am unclear if it passes WP:Notability because it contains not one single point of reference from a secondary independent source. It is an article with 100% original research. While the article has had maintainence tags only since January of this year to address these issues, these tags seem to be ignored as it continues to only attract editor(s) who want to add only original thought which Wikipedia is not per WP:Not and WP:Forum. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to have been an extremely popular television show back in its day. This book alone could probably be used to reference the entire characters list and the details in it. Silver seren^C 00:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSC #2 and WP:TOOLONG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generally, if a fictional work is unquestionably notable, then a character list is a good idea if the list is long enough that it affects readability of the main article. Verifiability doesn't seem to be a problem here, as shown by Silver seren's book source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator: I see your points and do agree these fictional characters are notable. I will try to add verifiable information from the book source and hopefully others. Thank you for your insights. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:48, 3 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.

[After_1991-1] Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991)

[2] Koenraad Elst. Who is a Hindu? Chapter Nine

[3] Koenraad Elst. Who is a Hindu? Chapter Eleven

[Goel-4] Sitam Ram Goel, How I became a Hindu. ch.9

[5] Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991) Footnote 64

[6] ttp://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/01/what-have-i-done.html

[7] The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History edited by Edwin Francis Bryant, Laurie L. Patton Among twenty published titles, most attention has been drawn by his Update on the Aryan Invasion ..... and Ayodhya, the Case against the Temple.

[8] ttp://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/03/no-more-khushwant-singh.html

[9] ttp://www.rameshnrao.com/history-ayodhya-after.html

[10] India's Agony Over Religion By Gerald James Larson

[11] Mother India: Monthly Review of Culture, Volume 58. page 521

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]