Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra singh Shekhawat[edit]

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

Yet another campaign brochure for a person notable only as an unelected candidate in an upcoming election. As always, per WP:POLITICIAN this is not a claim of notability that justifies a Wikipedia article; if a person was not notable enough to merit an article before becoming a candidate, then they have to win the election (not just run in it) to become notable enough. He'll qualify for an article if he wins, but there isn't a legitimate claim of notability here as things currently stand. For bonus points, check the credit permissions on the photograph: "from his Facebook profile". Er, no. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Smtchahal (talk) 06:23, 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bogdanos[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability. Can't distinguish what he is actually notable for. All links are self-published articles in professional journals or for awards he has been given in the military. — Ocatecir ^T 23:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he won the National Humanities Medal, isn't that pretty much notability in a nutshell? A maximum of 12 people per year get that award, which is usually presented by the US President. That makes me think a Keep is in order. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dennis Brown's reasoning appears accurate, and in my mind, seems sufficient. But independently, I feel that WP:GNG is met by the sources present in the article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per awards and press coverage. Pburka (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs some work, but the sources meet WP:GNG, and the individual meets WP:BIO. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. There's a pretty clear consensus to delete here, but there also seems like there are people who are willing to find the reliable sources needed, so I'm going to move this to draft space and let people work on improving it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Alexander[edit]

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

Creating AfD header that was neglected by nominator. Safiel (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rational Was Deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reed Alexander, recreated and then received a confused no-consensus somehow defaulting to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reed Alexander (2nd nomination). This is the third nomination. The references are insufficient for a WP:BLP and do not establish the notability of the subject, who appears to be a very minor actor with some very minor TV roles. Nothing has really changed since the first nomination. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject's acting credits are dicey at best, but in the end he fails WP:NACTOR. A few isolated media mentions, but he fails WP:GNG as well. Safiel (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete the only thing that comes close to notability is the nomination to Young Artist Award, but that is just a single nomination to a not very notable award. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

although not many people can say they got a plug from the President on their book jacket [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is rather notable, maybe not like Noah Munck, but enough to pass notability guidelines. Perhaps iCarly is the most notable, he has been in several TV shows and movies, and is continuing to add to his resume. He also has created a campaign website to promote healthy eating. Tinton5 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- notability is established by significant coverage in third party sources. Got any of those? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user below does! Check those out. Tinton5 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His roles in Ace Ventura Jr: Pet Detective and iCarly seem significant, and both are notable, thus per WP:NACTOR. Additionally, he's been able to use that fame to position himself as a chef and advocate for healthier living, gaining significant coverage in reliable sources.[2][3][4][5] -- Irn (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and incubate Here is another 3rd party source, [6]. WP:N is a guideline, and only requires evidence of attention. WP:V is a core content policy that requires WP:RS. The wp:notability for this topic is solid, with recognition coming from both Chelsea Clinton and Michelle Obama. The claims that the topic lacks wp:notability IMO are really concerns with WP:RS sourcing for the article. And the fact that we don't know the topic's birthdate from a reliable source, speaks to this problem. Someday Wikipedians can hope that talent agents will figure out the benefit of publishing a bio written by a reporter with a reputation for fact checking. Meanwhile, there is a mass of unsourced information in the current article, so it would not be too much to WP:TNT delete and start a new article in draftspace. To this end I have posted the frameworks for the article and talk page on the talk page here at WT:Articles for deletion/Reed Alexander (3rd nomination). Given the sources provided at this AfD, this is an easy article to write and return to mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús López[edit]

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

Minor league player (now playing in the Mexican league) who does not meet WP:ATHLETE or the baseball specific guidelines. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable minor leaguer. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable minor leaguer. Mexican League does not meet current notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Yankees10 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 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. Wizardman 14:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bateman[edit]

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

Perpetual minor league baseball player (10+years) who has never played a major league game. Doesn't meet wp:athlete or the baseball specific notability guidelines. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on the site since 2008. Maybe they were just holding out hope that he'd make it to the majors. Yeah, he doesn't meet any of the baseball requirement either. He has an ESPN page with nothing on it though lol.WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... Alass playing for the Bridgeport Bluefish does not confer notability.Spanneraol (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Yankees10 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 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. Wizardman 14:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collin DeLome[edit]

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

Perpetual minor league baseball player, I don't see passing WP:Athlete or the baseball notability guidelines (previous AfD mentions an all-star game appearance meeting them, but I don't see it there now.) References are routine sports coverage. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The CBS Sports reference in the article about him being named Conference player and hitter of the year is hardly "routine sports coverage." Most players do not achieve this and the article goes into some detail about this player. Although if that is the only significant coverage I agree it is not enough to pass WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in my book, the awards from the Southland Conference don't even come close to rising to the level of conferring notability. Since there doesn't appear to be other evidence to support keeping this article, delete it. Northern Antarctica ₵ 16:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with my distinguished colleague from Northern Antartica. Spanneraol (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Window Seat[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFF. Release date of August 15, 2015 is a year and a half from now. WAY, WAY to early for this article. PROD declined without an explanation by an IP with no other edits. Safiel (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, browsing through the edit history, most of the content edits are by Single Purpose IPs or Single Purpose Accounts. Safiel (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a piece of article from an RS which claims the movie is yet to begin filming. Forget the release date. Read it here (see the last line of the article) Imtiaz goes off-track Hence it is must that the article must be speedily deleted Arjann (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Films are not subject to speedy deletion on notability or significance grounds. Just let the AfD play out to conclusion. Safiel (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The principal photography of the film hasn't began.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about redirect the article to Imtiaz Ali filmography? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we go that route, delete and redirect to Window Seat (song), which at this moment is the more notable target. IF and WHEN this movie actually comes out and meets the film notability standards, create the article Window Seat (film) and use Window Seat as a disambiguation page. Safiel (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Harsh (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as of now, but Window seat itself is kind of a mess, and the whole area needs cleanup. The sofa is just a sofa next to a window, and is really unrelated to the window seat found in a car (most car seats are by a window, so I think that it is rare to call any seat in a car a "window seat") or on an airplane. I therefore would say that Window seat should be a disambiguation page, and Window Seat should point to it. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JAMS (alternative dispute resolution)[edit]

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

Non-notable company, as per WP:NCORP D P 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article meets WP:NCORP. While the article certainly needs a lot of work, it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. In the report from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, JAMS was noted to be one of the two "leading consumer arbitration administrators", and the report discussed JAMS fairly frequently throughout the report. It also received coverage in the LA Times article already currently used in the article as a reference, and multiple law review articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a top two or three company in its field; it is highly regarded in paralegal studies. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As evidenced by the sources already in the article, this is an important entity in US civil litigation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all of above. JAMS is extremely significant in its field, provides the mediation and arbitration services of numerous retired judges and experienced lawyers, and it is quite reasonable for interested readers to expect us to have an article about it. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Arbitration and Mediation was closed last year as Keep, and JAMS is probably more prominent than NAM, which provides the same types of services. (Disclosure: I'm a practicing litigator and have settled several cases with help from JAMS mediators. Unfortunately, they are not available to handle on-wiki disputes, or MedCom and ArbCom would have long since signed them up.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the expert above. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:26, 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. Wizardman 13:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rifkin[edit]

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

Seems like a perpetual minor league player (ten+ years without a major league appearance), and does not pass any of the relevant notability guidelines for athletes or baseball players. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable career minor leaguer. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... The Hamilton Jewelers "Fan Favorite Award" winner? If that doesn't confer notability.... I voted keep on the last afd but standards have changed since then so voting delete this time. Spanneraol (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Herr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems like a perpetual minor league player (ten+ years without a major league appearance), and does not pass any of the relevant notability guidelines for athletes or baseball players. Any news coverage is local coverage from the Lancaster Star, which isn't particularly surprising, as he plays minor league baseball there. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable career minor leaguer. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm gonna say that this guy meets GNG by basis of the sources HBWS mentioned in the previous two AFDs. Spanneraol (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Spanneraol. The articles noted in the prior AfD, plus the "Familiar name at third for Barnstormers" article that is currently in the article provide enough significant coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not going to !vote, as Herr and his father have strong ties to my local area, but I will say that there do seem to be sufficient sources, probably to meet GNG. Go Phightins! 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the sourcing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedy keep - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia stenoprion[edit]

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

Negligible content, not even a stub.--Exasperation115 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a valid stub with a reference; keep or merge. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a noted species, I consider it notable. Given the FloraBase entry, and Hooker's Journal of Botany and Kew Garden Miscellany, Volume 7, page 122, item 62 is the first entry on this species, under the synonym Dryandra stenoprion. I don't imagine this becoming a long article, but it can surely be less stubby. Chris857 (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - will have >2 reliable sources, which I will add presently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As short as it is, the articles provide a taxonomic placement, information on habit, information on distribution, and a link to further information and a photo. Right now the word "negligible" is crying out in pain and resentment. Hesperian 00:31, 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. Wizardman 13:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Ayala[edit]

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

Seems like a perpetual minor league player, and does not pass any of the relevant notability guidelines for athletes or baseball players. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable run of the mill minor leaguer.--Yankees10 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing special or notable here. Spanneraol (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable minor leaguer. Northern Antarctica (₵) 23:07, 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. Wizardman 13:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Pimentel[edit]

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

Seems like a perpetual minor league player (ten years without a major league appearance), and does not pass any of the relevant notability guidelines for athletes or baseball players. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill non-notable minor league player--Yankees10 21:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gallagher (weather forecaster)[edit]

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

Notability (WP:PEOPLE). DexDor (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled her and back came a mundane list of links mentioning that she does her job, I got to the end of the list in that before long it became a mish mash of links not relating to her. So she's not done anything of note. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Fails GNG -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:43, 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 speedy merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Withdrawing and closing my own nomination per WP:NOTBURO, merging seems like a reasonable compromise and is typical practice.. kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Parraz[edit]

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

Seems like a perpetual minor league player (ten years without a major league appearance), and does not pass any of the relevant notability guidelines for athletes or baseball players. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Alex (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alex. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my colleagues above. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zouhir Benouahi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested with the rationale I find many sources on the player seems to meet GNG. The sources listed in the article are routine sports journalism and do not amount to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. If GNG can be met then please evidence it; I'll be more than happy to re-consider. Giant Snowman 19:35, 6 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. The Azeri league is no longer considered an FPL. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it presumably meets GNG, based on (mostly) non-English sources. Player has been involved in a controversy related to playing against an Israeli team, in the Europa league, which caused his informal "banning" from Morocco national team.[7][8]. Sources I could find, that are directly about the player: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Note that there are alternative spellings of the name (e.g. Zohair Benuahi, Zouhair Benouahi) and that Azeri results probably do not show on Google for most people. --Tachfin (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With the exception of this, they are all very, very brief articles. It does seem like he has got some degree of coverage, but it doesn't really seem to be of asignificant level. Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Morris (biologist)[edit]

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

I do not feel this man is notable enough to warrant an article. He is known within the circumcision research community as a rabid supporter of the procedure. He is known as a bit of an oddball. Obsessed with circumcision almost. He runs his own procirc website. Outside of this he is barely known. Tremello (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PROF#C1 given h-index of 37 (though his name is so common this could be inflated). [14] Jinkinson talk to me 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the how you got the h-index number? According to the citation metrics section of WP:PROF the h-index isn't an adequate way to measure notability. No doubt he has done some important work though. His main disciplines - the ones he is actually qualified for are molecular biology, molecular genetics and hypertension research - he hasn't produced anything notable. Also, most of his work is with a team of people. A lot of the articles that give him a high h-index might be circumcision articles. Plus he hasn't made any breakthroughs or carried out research himself in the field of circumcision - most of his articles are review articles and critiques of previous research studies. He is merely just a commentator on circumcision. He hasn't conducted any experiments himself. Tremello (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Judging on his academic career, he's apparently in Who's Who Australia [15]. I take no position on the circumcision business, however the article should explain why he's notable (i.e. his research work) rather than any additional political advocacy and may need WP:CLEANUP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding who's who, sorry but I don't believe that. Pretty sure that is nonsense. You say "apparently". How do you know? Tremello (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. WP:AFD is not the place to promote an agenda. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it matters whether I believe it or not because nobody else will believe it if you do not provide proof. Tremello (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there is already broad consensus on AFD that the views of independent professionals who specialise in judging notability is extremely relevant. That's the thing about consensus - you can disagree with it, but you'll be in the minority. It's also considered quite rude to respond to each post with vague, baseless and pointless assertions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I feel he fails the "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field? Seems to me he doesn't stand out significantly enough to warrant an article. See here his bio page at Sydney University. He has a few awards and a few credits to his name but he hasn't produced amazing groundbreaking work that has changed the face of his discipline (hypertension). He wasn't responsible for any breakthrough. Of the 9 criteria on [WP:PROF]] I don't think he fulfills any. Note that professor emeritus is simply a title given to a retiring professor. Tremello (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I struck your delete != "vote," since you nominated it for deletion, and that counts as your one "vote." You are still welcome to comment. Edison (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can the Average Professor Test be invoked to discount someone for not having "produced amazing groundbreaking work that has changed the face of his discipline"? The main reason for keeping the APT around is to ensure that people won't hold "amazing," "groundbreaking" and "changing the face of the discipline" as the bar for notability. How much "above average" is needed for the APT is, and probably will always be, debated, but it is about above average, not Nobel Prize worthy. Per others, Strong Keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. He has many highly cited publications, e.g. (using the numbers from Google scholar) citation counts of 436, 332, 289, 276, 238, etc. There is also a plausible case for passing criterion C2 via the Dahl lectureship (I think the other awards are not at a high enough level for this criterion, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You act like the Dahl award is a big award. According to the website "The Lewis K. Dahl Memorial Lecture was established in 1988 by the Council for High Blood Pressure Research in honor of Dr. Dahl’s pioneering work on the relations between salt, the kidney and hypertension, and for establishing a major genetically based experimental model of hypertension (Dahl salt-sensitive rat)." So you are suggesting that Morris deserves an award for his contribution to the field of hypertension research?? Yet Dahl himself doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Also, do all the other recipients of the Dahl award listed on the website deserve a page in Wikipedia? To qualify for c2 it needs to be at the national or international level. Is the Dahl award even considered at the national or international level? I think they mean honours and awards bestowed by the country's government or major society or official international health organisation. The American heart Association is merely one of many not for profit organisations. Regarding the high number of citations, see my comment above. That doesn't automatically mean he warrants a page in an encyclopedia. Tremello (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did notice that it was an award given by a (major) American medical society to an Australian researcher, right? That's international. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep with an h-index of 59 obtained by searching for "B J Morris" in Google scholar stunningly passes WP:Prof#C1 in a highly cited field. I find this nomination strange. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

jinkinson said it was 37 now you say it is a "stunning" 59. How do you calculate this number? Plus is being the owner of a lot of widely cited articles the best way to decide whether he deserves an article? Plus a lot of his articles are with other people. Seems inconsistent to give him an article and not them. Using google scholar you can see the articles that are heavily cited. I don't think he made "stunning" breakthroughs in his career. Maybe you or someone else can convince me otherwise. Tremello (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Count it yourself and tell us what you find. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I calculate h-indices using this tool on Google Scholar, and in this case i typed in "author:"Morris BJ" Sydney" since Morris is such a common last name. Jinkinson talk to me 20:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "I find this nomination strange" - After reviewing the single-purpose nature of Tremello's edits within this topic area, I don't find this nomination by this particular editor surprising. Zad68 05:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using another reliable source, WoS, I get an h-index of 39 for the query "AUTHOR: (morris bj) Refined by: ORGANIZATIONS-ENHANCED: (UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". He probably wrote some early papers at other institutions where he evidently post-doc'ed at, so those would not be included here. I'll note that the concept of "stunning breakthroughs" is subjective and not at all what is required for keeping. His citations demonstrate that his work has been duly noted by his peers, i.e. WP:PROF c1, and that is wholly sufficient. Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per PROF. It doesn't matter to Wikipedia if a scholar is unknown outside of his or her chosen field; very few scientists are household names. At Wikipedia, notability, not fame, is what counts. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note investigate possible canvassing by Tremello, please see [16] and [17]. This was performed after improper removal (twice) of the WP:PROD template by Tremello after it was removed the first time, see initial PROD, its removal, and the the two subsequent reverts by Tremello here and here restoring the PROD template against the template instructions. Zad68 05:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I checked Web of Science (usually giving much lower citation rates than GS) and find 10 articles cited >100, over 6000 (six THOUSAND) citations in total, and an h-index of 43. No doubt at all that this passes WP:ACADEMIC#1. Any article issues can be handled on the article talk page. As for the canvassing, that is borderline admissible, as Tremello did not ask anybody to come here and !vote "delete", just asked them to come and give their opinion. I strongly suggest the nom to withdraw this AfD or that it be closed speedily per WP:SNOW, because continuing this discussion is an absolute wast of the community's time. --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second the motion for nom to withdraw. The conclusion is already definitive. Continued listing is a waste of valuable editor-hours. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Important Comment about H-index calculations: I think there are two Brian J. Morrises. One is this Australian chap who is a molecular biologist; the other is a neuropsychologist from Glasgow University [18], and the author of the book Molecular Biology of the Neuron. I don't know whether this is enough to mess up people's h-indices. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This could have affected my calculation (two people with exactly the same name in the same field). However, the filtered results make the position clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

In principle that could be a problem, but I searched for "Morris BJ AND Australia", so that should have avoided the other BJM. Also, I checked the titles of the 10 highest-cited articles and they all were on the subjects that "our" BJM works on. --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my WoS query (furnished above) filters on "UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY". Agricola44 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per high h-index, which gives a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. An incomprehensible nomination. -- 101.114.47.159 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On checking the nom's record, this nomination smells of WP:POINT. Given the fact that everybody else is unanimous, it might be time for WP:SNOW (though it is not quite winter yet in Australia). -- 101.114.47.159 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He is, it seems, most notable for his circumcision advocacy. I would support giving that more prominence in the article. 24.131.136.147 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). I conducted a GS-based citation analysis for "Brian Morris" with the following keyword-based restrictions: biology "University of Sydney" Australia. Even with these restrictions, which should go a long way toward ruling out false positives (and actually lead to many false negatives), the h-index turned out to be 39.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:46, 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. Wizardman 13:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton Buller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

32 year old journeyman minor leaguer. Fails WP:Athlete and WP:GNG Yankees10 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable minor leaguer. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perpetual minor league player, doesn't pass the athlete or minor league notability guidelines. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the guidelines. No claim to notability.Spanneraol (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails athlete notability guidelines. Ducknish (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stone (footballer)[edit]

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

PROD contested. Claiming that the NASL season starts in 6 days. For the hundredth time, Wikipedia does not operate in the process of "he will be notable soon" per WP:CRYSTAL. Article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is unnecessary, and an absolute waste of everyone's time. WP:CRYSTAL says expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. It's almost certain (barring tragedy) that Andrew Stone will be playing for Indy Eleven early in the season, as is clear to anyone who has been paying attention to their (now completed) pre-season. He started in their line-up in their final pre-season game [19] after he was prodded, even scoring a goal, and be featured in the post-game write-up. No, this doesn't make him notable, but an application of WP:COMMONSENSE rather than losing perspective and being too wrapped up in the rules would show that it does the project no harm, to leave the article alone for a few weeks, to see if the almost certain actually occurs. If something tragic happens, it's easy enough to delete the article at that time. However if the article is deleted, what invariably happens is that someone comes along within hours of the match, before there is a change to restore the article, and spends time rewriting it from scratch, rather than using their time better elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If something tragic happens". So in other words, it's not almost certain he'll be playing early in the season and this waste of people's time argument is not going to cut it. Also you keep giving us info that you admit doesn't make him notable and yet you're telling us to leave this article alone rather than following GNG and NFOOTBALL and relying on past consensus? The only thing that matters is right now, and right now this article still fails. – Michael (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of recreating this article in a few weeks, if not days? There's absolutely no reason to remove this article at this time, days before the start of the season, when he it is fully anticipated he's going to be playing a major role, if not starting. There are no firm rule that say this article needs to be deleted. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:12, 6 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. Despite the WP:CRYSTAL claims above, there is no indication that the player will feature in the first team squad. Clubs often play reserve team players in the "first XI" in pre-season friendlies, particularly against weaker teams when in reailty these players would not feature in regular league or cup competition. Current long-standing consensus is players who do not meet NFOOTY because they haven't played are non-notable in all but extreme cases and the cost of recreating is more than out weighed by the benefit of not having hundreds of youth player articles which we are assured by other editors are for players who will definitely play in the next few weeks but never do. Fenix down (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non starting players may well be used in early pre-season games, or on pre-season games of top-level European teams that don't go through much changeover during the relatively short off-season. But this isn't how lower-level North American teams with a relatively short playing season and high turn-over work. During the final pre-season games, playing the full match, is an attempt to get the players to match fitness. By playing the final pre-season games in their entirety, and scoring goals at the same time, it's almost certain that they will be on the pitch, or at least on the bench, in 5 days. And almost certain he will see playing time soon. Nfitz (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But its the "almost certain" element that is the issue. The fact is is that it is not "almost certain" from a WP POV, because there are no reliable sources that say this, just you. If he plays before the AfD, then great, I will change my opinion because he is then notable, if he doesn't then he is not notable. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Would you put money on him not playing soon? No, of course you wouldn't. You only have to look at the recent results to see that he'll be playing. More so than Kyle Hyland. Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have put a rule that mentions stuff like that. As of now, he's not notable, so if we have to wait one week, we'll wait one week. Soopafred (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He made the roster at a fully professional level per NFOOTY's notability criteria. I'm disappointed that almost everyone argued to delete someone's article just a few days before the season started. This discussion is a black eye for Wikipedia. Royal broil 14:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, he has to play in a fully pro league match to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. No exceptions. Just being on the roster does not count. – Michael (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it count? There's no rule against it. He's appearing on the bench as a defender. It's not like he's the backup keeper. It's almost certain he'll appear in a match sooner or later. It's a waste of time to delete and then restore articles like this on a regular basis; and it's easy enough to delete, in the unlikely event that it becomes clear he's not about to get on the pitch. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that only applies players who have actually played. What may happen in the future is never grounds for notability. Until he actually plays, WP:GNG, which this article fails, is the only relevant notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH trump WP:NFOOTBALL. It's virtually assured we'll be undeleting the article soon. Why waste time deleting it? Nfitz (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:CRYSTAL trumps those. Giant Snowman 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:CRYSTAL trumps WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:NORUSH. But even if it did, I noted above that WP:CRYSTAL says expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. It's almost certain (barring tragedy) that Andrew Stone will be playing for Indy Eleven early in the season, as is clear to anyone who has been paying attention to their (now completed) pre-season. He played extensively during the pre-season, including scoring a goal in the final game. And he was one of only 3 non-keepers on the bench not to play in the last game. He's not particularly young. He's not a keeper. There's no reason not to think he'll play relatively soon. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thank you Nfitz I created this article almost certainly knowing that he would be playing early in the season, all though he didn't play in Saturday nights season opener its almost certain he will play within the next 2 games based on his preseason statistics.Gamemaster eleven (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Gamemaster eleven:, why is it almost certain? It was almost certain earlier according to you and Nfitz and he didn't play. what has changed? He wasn't notable prior to the start of the season, you, and particularly @Nfitz: insisted that he would definitely be playing. He didn't and continues to be non-notable, yet you are both insisting that he will definitely play, requesting an indefinite stay of execution based on your wholly sbjective, and to date completely wrong reasoning. The fact of the matter is that no one should create any article on non-notable subjects. Until he plays, he is non-notable. You shouldn't have created this article at the moment per WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to OK Computer. Of note is that the nominator also specified to redirect in a comment within the discussion. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Music (For a Film)[edit]

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

This is a poorly written article containing original research. More importantly, I don't believe the subject matter deserves its own article. The song "Exit Music (For a Film)" wasn't a single, doesn't have a music video, and has not received enough attention to merit notability on its own terms. The song can be sufficiently covered in the OK Computer article. Popcornduff (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to OK Computer. I believe that enough material may be found for a standalone article. Otherwise, the best would be its redirection to the main article, OK Computer. Deletion doesn't even seem to be necessary; a merge proposal would've been more appropriate. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suck at this - redirecting is indeed what I had in mind, but when I redirected before, I was directed to the AfD process. Popcornduff (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to OK Computer. Doesn't seem independently notable from the album. Orser67 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album. Individually it isn't a notable track. KaisaL (talk) 01:01, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Kamara[edit]

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

PROD contested because supposed place has references, however, two references mean nothing to me. PROD was done as this article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 17:49, 6 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) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the page itself is dreadful, it does link to the Finnish-language version of the page fi:Glen Kamara which is relatively well written and referenced. In particluar, one of the references there in particular [20] does meet the standard to establish notability; it addresses the topic (Glen Kamara) directly and in detail; it's reliable (in that there are 3 other articles also referenced in the same article confirming the facts); and there are multiple secondary sources; the sources are independent of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be more than just a few though. Just because there are a few sources that would pass GNG does not mean this player passes GNG. I mean, I just looked him up on google and all I find are stat pages. Google News does not help his case either. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google News only searches the last 4-5 weeks or so. Unfortunately, Google has changed Google News search so it doesn't find older material. I had no problem finding these articles, and others, using the regular Google Search ... try changing your search language to Finnish. Nfitz (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Enigma^msg 02:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. SOurces noted above seem insufficient in number and length for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hristijan Srkeski (footballer)[edit]

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

This article has been PRODed multiple times at Hristijan Srkeski but I can't see that it has been discussed. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL has not played at fully professional level. No sources that would satisfy the WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 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) 06:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFOOTBALL is pretty clear on this. Ducknish (talk) 23:45, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's reasons for invading the Soviet Union[edit]

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

This article is almost entirely a quote of copied subtitles from a youtube video. The quote is too long not to be a copyright violation. Even if it could be briefly paraphrased as a stub, there is no indication that Hitler's thoughts about his invasion of the Soviet Union are notable as a standalone article in Wikipedia. An article with only Hitler's views is extremely non-neutral. I am One of Many (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think the article says a great deal about Hitler's reasons for invading the Soviet Union, you probably didn't read the whole thing or careful enough. I will though agree that it would be hard to even make a stub. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quote from an non-notable speech isn't a proper basis for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, but no secondary coverage establishing notability. Seems more appropriate for Wikisource. Orser67 (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Article" consists solely of a single primary source, and topic is already explored in much greater depth in Operation Barbarossa. While the speech may have historical significance, Wikipedia is not a repository. This belongs in Wikisource, not here.--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 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. Wizardman 14:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Past WCL Team Tables[edit]

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

WP:NOT#STATS Delete Secret ^account 15:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly some of it should be merged into the league page but it looks like the relevant stuff is already there. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator of this page. I created this page as a reference page. I made it because the West Coast League has had many league changes that I felt that I needed to make a page that had a table for every year that the league has been in play. As an alternate I can put the table from each year on to differnet places on to the leagues table. On the league's page I have a level 3 tab for every year so I can add the table into each year.Defan24 (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful onto West Coast League. Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raton Osos[edit]

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

Non-notable team of a barely notable semi-professional league. Fails WP:GNG, redirect to league reverted so Delete Secret ^account 14:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding

To this nomination, all teams in the same league. Secret ^account 14:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. While players in independent professional leagues are not notable, the leagues and the teams themselves are.Spanneraol (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spanneraol nailed it. Alex (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Semi professional teams and leagues are notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's Something In The Water Songwriters Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only one google hit with an artist who is not even on the listed performer list, featured performers seem to be mostly the same year to year. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I stumbled on this thinking I would come in and slam down a few quick references and save the article, as I'm hugely biased towards keeping anything cultural like this. Sadly, I just don't find anything, nothing. Seems to not be popular outside the local area, and coverage is literally non-existent. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real event that's been going on for almost ten years. After trying to find more information on the event online and checking Wikipedia I was presented with a link stating there was not a page "There's Something In The Water Songwriters Festival" and would I like to start one... I started the page with the hope of having others contribute once it's started and plan to continue to add to it as I have the time and track down more information.

As far as notability yes there are several excellent core performers play each year but there's also some rising stars both men and women who've played at the fest. Amoung others there's John Fullbright who played the fest in 2012 who was a 2013 Grammy nominee for Best Americana Album. The Dam Quails played in an earlier event and their cd “Down the Hatch” was released in 2011. The record spent many weeks on the National Americana Chart, and has had several top 20 singles on The Texas Music Chart including “Fool’s Gold” “So So Long”, and “Me and The Whiskey”. I haven't compiled a complete list of all the performers over the life of the fest but a few of the ones I have already listed seem to have Wikipedia pages. John Fullbright, Susan Herndon, Michael Fracasso...

Coverage is non-existent yes, I guess so, it's located in a sparsely populated part of Texas over two hours from Austin or Dallas yet musicians come from several states to be a part of it. It's a virtually unknown music event and they probably don't really want the added attention. I simply thought that the history of the musicians who've played there would be interesting and should be chronicled and archived in one place but I guess it's not Wikipedia.

So... "slam down" what you like or have it deleted it if an article about a Texas singer/song writer fest is not up to standards. Phil560 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I did everything I could to find the sources. I'm usually the guy fighting tooth and nail to keep event articles and I've written a few of my own. I just couldn't find the sources needed to keep it. Wish I could have, but I didn't. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to cross the notability threshold for lack of available references in third-party sources. Of possible comfort, in my research trying to rescue this article I did find some sources to cite and improve the Regency Bridge article and have included a brief note about this festival there. - Dravecky (talk) 14:17, 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 and redirect to Austin & Ally (soundtrack). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Billion Hits[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS. Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Musical_notability This song is by a major record label and also a pop Musical standard and also Ross Lynch's other singles exist on wikipedia like Heard It on the Radio. It also didn't win a major award. Your claim is not proper. You cannot nominate an article for deletion without proper criteria.The song has been played on International television.This song is notable.[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add multiple !votes to a discussion. Also note that using multiple accounts (including anonymous ones) is sockpuppetry and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Adabow (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to ~~Ross Lynch~~ Austin & Ally (soundtrack). No evidence of notability per WP:NSONG which is the standard. Cited sources generally fail WP:RS and many seem to have little or nothing to do with the subject of the article. A quick Google failed to yield anything that rang the notability bell. With respect to the Keep argument posted above I don't see any evidence presented of notability. The burden of proof where notability is concerned is with the article's creator, not the nom, though AfD noms are expected to exercise due diligence to avoid frivolous nominations. The notability of a singer or composer does not automatically transfer to their works. As for the existence of other articles about singles from the same source that is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which holds no water. If evidence of charting or some other notability endowing factor is found I am open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:NSONG. VQuakr (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also this related AfD... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heard It on the Radio. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin & Ally (soundtrack) - plausible search term as a promotional single from a notable album, but I'm finding no evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow talk 07:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also this related AfD... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can You Feel It (Ross Lynch song).--Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Austin & Ally (soundtrack). Non-notable song from a notable album. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:14, 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three.js[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still non-notable. All refs about the library are first party, mostly to it's project page on github. Most of the refs are not about it, so fail the significant coverage aspect of the GNG, and are for a long 'uses' section which doesn't even belong. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note: I am the author of much of the content of this entry - so I have a natural bias regarding the notability of Three.js. I am also a believer in the Wikipedia movement and paying supporter of Wikipedia. Thus whenever I have added or edited Wikipedia entries it is with the intention of fully adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. Having said that, I am also a newb in this process and have much to learn.

I also note that the entry very much needs an update. Much has happened in online 3D since the last significant edits to the entry. The Occulus Rift, Leap Motion and other virtual or augmented reality products have appeared on the market and Three.js continues to be the leading JavaScript library used to build the software demos for these devices. And I take this nomination for deletion as a heads-up that I should do some more work and get other people involved as well.

Regarding the current entry, there are 72 references. Three point to the primary source https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js. A few others point to other GitHub references. The majority of references are verifiable third party sources with content that incorporates significant mentions of Three.js.

I do agree agree with JohnBlackburne that the Uses section has issues. I built it up so as to try to help highlight where Three.js has been a significant asset in notable projects. I am sure that there are better ways of establishing notability.

But what are the key elements in identifying the notability of free, open source software libraries? Are there any available metrics or guidelines that could be useful - and acceptable to the Wikipedia community? Are there there third party statistics statistics of usage that are acceptable? Wikipedia is such a huge place, any help in locating such resources for online software would be really useful.

Of course, I feel that Three.js is notable - and so do some thousands of others https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/stargazers. But, perhaps JohnBlackburne has a valid point and there are better places for Wikipedia resources to be used. And, I hope that I am just as committed as JohnBlackburne is to helping Wikipedia figure this entry out - and thus help build standards that the whole free open source software movement can learn from... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoA (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The General Notability Guideline describes what is needed for notability on Wikipedia. There are no separate policies for free software. If you feel any of the references satisfy the requirement it would be helpful if you identify them; currently there are far too many to check, but the main ones to github are not reliable sources, while the rest all seem to be on other topics, not on the library.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the references are to Github or client websites. This is a total affront to Wikipedia standards. The article as it stands is unreliable and if the subject is notable a completely different article is needed. Shii (tock) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are books devoted to the topic, such as Learning Three.js: The JavaScript 3D Library for WebGL and Game Development with Three.js and books which use the lib extensively throughout the text, such as WebGL: Up and Running. The first two books are published by Packt and the third is published by O'Reilly, both reputable publishers. The article lists other books in the Bibliography, but I have not checked those. There are enough multiple in-depth RS to pass notability. The article itself is somewhat promotional, for instance, the "Selected Uses and Works" section is basically an ad for how widely it is used and could be cut back to just notable entries (those with WP articles themselves) and a couple of examples. But removing promotional content is a surmountable problem, per, WP:SURMOUNTABLE; there is no need to blow it up per WP:TNT. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does need to perhaps start with some notable sources, however the topic itself does pass WP:GNG. In addition to the books mentioned above there are also Addison-Wesley published Learning HTML5 Game Programming: A Hands-on Guide to Building Online Games and Apress published Beginning WebGL for HTML5 and in published papers: Evans, A.; Romeo, M.; Bahrehmand, A.; Agenjo, J.; Blat, J. (2014). "3D graphics on the web: A survey". Computers & Graphics. 41: 43. doi:10.1016/j.cag.2014.02.002. with Online pdf which has a section on it -- Rescendent (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The delete arguments don't make sense. The article has 70 references and six bibliography entries. There is no evidence provided that any of these sources are unreliable. Not only are there no Google web, Google book, and Google scholar searches to support the hypothesis that the topic is non-notable, the nominator states regarding the references in the article, "there are far too many to check". wp:Notability has only one requirement, that the topic be "worthy of notice". The key words in the WP:N nutshell are "attention" and "evidence". Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only want to highlight that I think this AfD was started because of my comment on the old AfD. 87.79.119.179 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is no prejudice against the creation of a user space draft. I can userfy upon request. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Horstmann Technique[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:FRINGE therapy: Google shows only 3000 hits for "horstmann technique" and 600 for "horstmann system", and almost all of them advertising. Three offline sources are cited: a vegan advocacy organization's magazine, a defunct New Age magazine, and the inventor's self-published book - none of them being close to reliable sources, especially for medical claims. The article used to contain a bunch of pseudoscientific claims of how the technique supposedly works; after user:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV removed them there's literally nothing left that describes the technique itself. Kolbasz (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not so well traveled in Wikipedia, so I do not know if this is the correct way to comment on the suggestion of deleting the article about Horstmann Technique. It is my first contribution and is probably flawed. The knowledge of the technique is not well spread despite it having been around for a while. I understand that the topic might not be to everyone's liking, but I thought that an article in Wikipedia needn't be liked by all as long as it is as informative as it can be. Is not agreeing with the contents reason for deletion? Not all topics/articles have a huge amount of sources, but to me it would sound awkward as having that as a reason for deletion. How else would information be able to begin spreading? There are numerous articles in Wikipedia about what could be termed "Alternative medicine", and of course each reader is allowed his or her opinion about the validity. But regardless, there is at least an open debate about the concept. And that debate seems allowed and accepted in Wikipedia community. I do not see the Horstmann Technique any different from other topics that are allowed in and are subject to debate. I would prefer to having the debate compared to having it crushed. The latter would seem to me to work against the openness and expansion of Wikipedia in coverage. Matopotato (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I did not receive any notification that the original article was changed, despite being the author. Now I can see that a large portion was deleted. Although this part had sources, that I tried to duly refer to. I understand that you probably do not agree with me on the contents, but if I do not agree with the edits, is there some kind of poll to decide what is acceptable or not? It seems to be more a case of opinion that is the driver to remove the article than lack of sources. I could dig into Wikipedia for less quoted articles if you need help finding such? Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matopotato. In general, you won't receive notification that an article has been edited but the article should have been added automatically to your watchlist (third link from the right at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you're logged in). In this case, it looks like much of the content was deleted because it didn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I've added a welcome notice to your talk page with some helpful links. The best place to start would be be to read WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Feel free to post any questions to my talk page. With regard to this article - yes, Wikipedia requires subjects to have received "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" to be considered notable. The aim of Wikipedia is to cover things that have been covered elsewhere, not to operate as a vehicle to help subjects "to begin spreading". Have a bit of a read about how these discussions work and then perhaps come back with some policy-based comments for people to consider. Stalwart111 13:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for other editors, this article was accepted at WP:AFC by a ~~now-blocked~~ sock-puppeteer who was blocked the following day and hasn't edited since. Obviously shouldn't have been accepted and it's not the creators fault that it was. Stalwart111 13:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stalwart, What is a sock-puppeteer in Wikipedia terminology? I was under the impression that there was some "acceptance procedure" before someone was allowed to allow or reject articles? First version was actually rejected for lack of references, but when that was corrected it went to acceptance with a wish for adding more references later on (unless I remember wrongly) Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a quick read of WP:SOCK - it's someone who operates multiple accounts at the same time. In this instance someone was operating multiple accounts so that they could submit an article with one account and accept it via WP:AFC with another. They also (from the looks of it) accepted a number of other articles (including yours) to make the others look "legit". The person who accepted yours was blocked from editing. Your article should never have been accepted but there was no way you could possibly have known that. On that basis, I'm going to add a suggestion that might be better than outright deletion. Stalwart111 11:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - send this back to user-space as a draft to allow the editor to re-submit it when he feels it is ready for the article space again. An unfortunate turn of events that a new editor could not possibly have foreseen. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him some more time to work on this. Suggest User:Matopotato/Horstmann draft or something similar. Stalwart111 11:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the good faith action might be to usefy, but that is only going to create additional work for us in the future, as it'll inevitably either be reintroduced into the main namespace while still substandard, or abandoned and WP:MFDed. Some rubbish simply isn't worth being userficationinged. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was not relevant the last time (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horstmann_technique), is still not relevant. – OttoMäkelä (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I have found a one definite RS source on google books The Big Picture: Insights from the Spiritual World, some possible (questionable) sources Massage post, Mackay Fitness Central, and OV Guide, appear to be verifiable and does not hurt notability claims. With the one RS sources this information should be merged if possible per WP:PRESERVE. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Lacks RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV#Horstmann_Technique_edit. I am still somewhat confused as to where to post comments. First step was to cut out referenced material by edits made by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, and then suggested by Kolbasz for deletion. For the sake of the discussion I think the version before editing would need to be considered when discussing deletion. Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone will believe me, but I was surprised to find there had already been an article in 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horstmann_technique) as OttoMäkelä wrote, anyway possible to read this previous version? Obviously there is someway to do that kind of research before entering an article. I tried to follow the beginners instructions. Perhaps it is possible to add a short instruction how to find out previously deleted articles in order to save anybody's time and effort. Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to contain originally intended scope and information to allow editors to form an opinion of the article as it was before it was cut. Matopotato (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for improving the formatting of the references. In examining the references there is 1. A self published book by the originator 2. and 3. Two very minor fringe magazines certainly not WP:MEDRS to support biomedical information and far from enough to establish notability 4. Another self published book that is clearly fringe and 5. A blog post on a non notable promotional website with no author or date given. No basis for notability, no support for biomedical information, my position remains Delete. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you yourself for helping me with the formatting of the references to get them right. Matopotato (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of alternative therapies. It is not our job as editors to either confirm or deny the Truth^TM of this topic. At the same time, as per WP:Fringe, it is essential that Wikipedia not reify insignificant topics. But given the 20-year age of this concept, denying its inclusion now is seeming like less-than-convincing censorship. Suppressing this topic on Wikipedia may simply lead to future objections that the topic is missing, as we are already seeing. Since there is no particular need to decide that the topic is or is not notable, merge. Unscintillating (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:GB fan per CSD A7, "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microflick Software Corporation[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax... I can find http://www.microflick.in/home.php, but it's pretty basic. JMHamo (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Delete - A "billion dollar" online business would have an online footprint, no references/citations either.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy): An article created by the WP:SPA principal of the company. I found this skeletal startup page but clearly no demonstration of attained notability there. I've flagged a CSD A7 (but considered a G3 as per nomination). AllyD (talk) 14:05, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidou Traoré[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had scored twelve goals in the Malian First Division. However, since this league is not confirmed as fully pro, doing so does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. In this case, a PROD was the same concern was removed by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article's creator I have added several references to show that he has played in a Pro League and that according to CAF and FIFA the Malian League is a professional league. This is per the fact that Malian Première Division is the top division of football in Mali. Having been created in 1966, it is governed by the Fédération Malienne de Football. The league has been professional since 2004.CrossTemple Jay 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because a league is in the non-western world, we need to recognize that the conversation is going to be in different places, and off different level of sources to create notability. This looks like WP:Systematic bias problems. And +1 to Crosstemplejay's reasoning, Sadads (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Traoré, Delete Berthé~~ Delete Both - Arguments above are entirely incorrect. @Crosstemplejay: you may wish to refamiliarise yourself with WP:NFOOTY, the Malian league may contain professional clubs, but there is no current consensus that it is a FULLY professional league. You are of course welcome to start a discussion at WT:FOOTY if you believe you have sources that indicate that it is. @Sadads: you may wish to reconsider your whole opinion or at least provide some evidence for your claim of systematic bias. At the moment, you just look boorish. Geographic locale has no impact on GNG whatsoever.

However for Traoré, this indicates the player did play in at least one of the 2014 African Nations Championship matches, which this indicates were full FIFA intenationals for the first time, so he passes WP:NFOOTY. This article requires expanding not deleting. None of the sources here indicate Traoré actually played in the competition.

~~Although~~ Additionally, for Berthé, this, this, this and this indicate he was an unused substitute in all four games, so does not appear to have played in an FPL, nor senior international football and so fails WP:NFOOTY. Though sources are provided, they are in the main WP:ROUTINE match reports and stat sites. There is no indication of significant, reliable sources covering any other achievements in the required level of detail for WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: The source you've provided only confirms that Traoré was named to the substitutes bench, but says nothing as to whether he came on or not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: you're quite right, they changed the formatting of the reports and I saw him down as number 10 so asssumed he played. Have adjusted my comments accordingly. Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not changing position, this has been an endemic problem with AfDs for sports leagues and player articles that I have run into: teams or players at a level that would meet notability in the United States or Europe because of GNG coverage requirements, don't in other locations because of our English communities overzealous reliance on 1) Western governed international ranking systems or standards for "professional" and 2) reliable source materials, which are not produced in as large a quantity in developing countries, in as many accessible western languages on the internet. We have endemic problems in regards to coverage of non-Western public peoples, and I am reminded in these discussions how Wikipedia is perpetuating media imperialism. Sadads (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's see some examples where such events have occured against consensus. Your unsupported rhetoric is as tiring as it is groundless. To refute your point quite readily, one only has to look at WP:FPL for a long list of non US / non-European leagues where there is consensus that the league is fully professional and therefore that players are generally considered notable. There are 38 of them. There are 33 US / European leagues confirmed as fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - both players fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both players play in the Malian Première Division the top division of professional soccer in Mali. Clearly we can't hold such impoverished countries to western standards, and to do so would show WP:BIAS and systemic racism. Nfitz (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Nfitz:

1 - you know full well the definition of FULLY professional leagues. Partially professional or those where FPL consensus is lacking are not deemed sufficient for NFOOTY. Mali is not on that list. For the millionth time, if you believe you have evidence to indicate Mali as an FPL, please present it for dicsussion at WT:FOOTY.

2 - Regardless of this, could you please show some significant reliable sources that would indicate GNG?

3 - Are you actually accusing other editors of racism, I would recommend you retract that statement or provide some evidence to back it up.

4 - Do you have any idea how patronising your comment about "inmpoverished" nations sounds? I can't believe that based on some strange subjective view of the wealth / standing of a nation you are seriously suggesting WP should have lower GNG standards?!?

5 - Not only is it patronising, it is also inherently self-contradictory, you throw unfounded accusations of bias around (again!), but in the same breath indicate you believe we should be biased against some nations by having a lower notability threshold. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fenix down Whatever we've done in the past, doesn't meant that this isn't WP:BIAS and systemic racism. And where have I ever accused any individual editor of racism? Do you understand what systemic means? Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Malian Première Division isn't listed under WP:FPL, so both fail WP:NFOOTBALL. They both also fail WP:GNG because they have not received significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - Have not played in a Fully Professional League. They fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL... JMHamo (talk) 11:22, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both – being a top level league is not valid rationale for an article, many top European leagues are not fully professional, and playing in them does not indicate sufficient notability. Comparing the Mali league to the German one for example is not a valid comparison. Perhaps it is at a similar level to the Irish league, players of which are not assumed automatically notable unless the WP:GNG is met. No keep arguments demonstrate that. C 679 04:31, 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) 23:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ramsey (artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was adding again after being deleted with no addition information to prove notability.

Comment - User:Beatbox12 tacked the above on to the previous AfD page; I've moved it here. No opinion on the validity. ansh666 05:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page had been deleted and then restored by User:Ymblanter, so the page was previously deleted, if anyone is curious. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a technical misunderstanding. I found it going through the notices on misplaced AfD templates, saw that the template is linked to a closed AfD discussion and deleted the page. Then I realized that the situation is more complicated, and another AfD discussion it should have been linked, so that I restored the page. No opinion about notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that you probably had a good reason, I was more mentioning that in order to avoid people automatically tagging it with the various speedy deletion templates. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just got a notice and wanted to clarify.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but bear in mind I don't understand the above comments (or the nomination). When at AFD the article was like this and now I see this. The article has been completely rewritten and many references have been added. [22][23][24][25][26] seem to be worth considering as indicating notability. Thincat (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references prove notability. The mention of celebrity ownership doesn't make an artist notable. Typically this is down through art exhibitions, showing work in notable galleries, accolades through notable art groups, or working with other notable artists. This artist hasn't provided any references those things.

I wasn't going by WP:ARTIST, I was going by WP:GNG. We are not required to "prove" notability – we are asked to heed the notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's classified as an artist, why don't you believe he should be held to the WP:ARTIST guidelines? With that said, I still don't see how he meets the WP:GNG notability guidelines. Beatbox12 (talk)

The most salient thing in the deletion discussion (IMO) is that he has been in the news quite a few times in the past few years (New York Times, Huffington Post, and lesser known outlets). I don't know if he gets media attention and is collected by famous people due to due to the quality of his work, or due to his 'insider' status among well-known people. He sort of straddles the guidelines for WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Perhaps his article shouldn't be as long as it is, but the artist seems at least as notable as, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Famous_Bushman. Slatsg (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think there's a chance the subject might pass WP:GNG but the referencing has to be some of the most dishonest I have ever seen in a Wikipedia article. For example, the article suggests his artwork was bought by Ban Ki-Moon, a statement which is sourced to an article about an unrelated subject with a passing mention at the end that another source had suggested his work had been bought by, "officials at the United Nations". The vast majority of the biggest claims are completely unsourced and those that are sourced have been sourced to interviews with the subject where he makes various unsourced and unsubstantiated claims to fame. There are some sources that quote whole swathes of other sources but are used to suggest "multiple" instances of coverage. I'm going to try and clean it up but it's really quite atrocious. Stalwart111 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cut the article right back to only those claims that can be verified with reliable sources. I think there's enough coverage there to substantiate a pass against WP:GNG and it no longer reads like gushing promo-spam. Stalwart111 23:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is a great improvement. I thought (when I voted above) there was sufficient referenced material to meet our populist notability guidelines but it was swamped by the other stuff (which I couldn't bear to consider properly!). Thincat (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was having the same problem - seemed like the only way to get a clear picture. Stalwart111 21:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now appears to be straight forward and is well sourced. I vote to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2reality (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment appears to be affiliated with artist. With the edited article none of the sources seem to prove notability matching WP:ARTIST guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatbox12 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And? WP:COI is irrelevant, as is WP:ARTIST if the subject passes WP:GNG, which he does. Stalwart111 22:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (realised I didn't actually !vote) - the subject obviously passes WP:GNG and doesn't need to pass any subsequent secondary criteria. Artists need not pass WP:ARTIST if they already pass WP:GNG. Those secondary guidelines exist to allow non-mainstream artists to meet additional art-specific criteria if they don't meet GNG. The subject meets GNG with "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". For our purposes here, nothing else matters. Stalwart111 22:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of pure numbers, consensus is clear. However, AFD is not a vote, and the strength of the arguments are so far not convincing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Huffington Post, The Atlantic, and International Business Times are among the cited sources. That sure looks like WP:GNG is satisfied to me. —C.Fred (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (Cher Lloyd song)[edit]

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

Page fails per the policies of WP:SONGS. The artwork is not completed revealed; fails to source sufficient sources and has no chart history. A music video has not yet been produced. And the single has not yet been released in her native of UK; U.S. Billboard hasn't charted the song based off of pre-order only. Far too early for an article. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - It's a single, so it can't be deleted. — ₳aron 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for ₳aron. Why can't singles be deleted? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's had commercial release. Can't help that it didn't chart. — ₳aron 12:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's rubbish and you know it. Please read WP:SONGS - many people read that IF it is charted it is notable, but that's not right either. The only reason I am not saying delete is because the nomination is a little premature. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. (According to the article at least) It was sent to US radio today. There's a couple of good sources in the article, but there's a lot of unreliable ones too. I'd say wait it out for now. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song still seems new so per Status I say wait it out for now. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:40, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Queen of India[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiyasnazar, please send complaints to User: ‎Amatulic for the need to open an afd for an obvious g5 csd Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please do. Sockpuppet investigation has not yet been completed, so this is premature. Will delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G5 depending on the ouctome. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IF you are so blind or unwilling to see the SPI you can't see the duck test then you shouldn't have the mop. What you are doing now is trying to hide the fact that you didn't do even the slightest due diligence from the tag which you could have easily done. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have a WP:CIVIL violation. Keep it up. Are you trying to get yourself blocked? My due diligence consisted of noting that no evidence was presented in the G5 tag or the edit summary, and an allegation was made in SPI with no outcome. The duck test was not clear to me either. You multi-tagged the article with A7, G5, and G11, all of which are clearly inappropriate, if you read the criteria for each. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I have done a lot of work on it and I'm nobody's sock. Please, let the AfD go its own way, it is the most sensible and transparent starting point at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you aren't a sock, I appreciate the fact of what you are doing even if I disagree with the outcome. What I do not appreciate is administrative laziness or inability to understand policies clearly. I've tried assuming good faith and I came up with three possibilities none of them good. 1. They didn't even look 2. They are unfamiliar with CSD policy or 3 they don't care. I do not appreciate being accused of not doing due diligence on an article, or that I have broken a rule that apparently User:Amatulic has made up out of thin air. I've asked for justification on his supposed warning to me on his page. I plan on taking it to ANI if I don't get a response shortly. The fact that you are asking for an AFD means we will have one and I will format the deletion rationale in a few minutes when I calm down a little. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin as well and I don't see anything what User:Amatulic did wrong. Read carefully WP:G5. It says specifically that G5 should not be applied to pages which have substantial edits by others. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence or laziness to start. Those are literally the only things this can be, let me explain why, (on the surface you are correct in your assessment) however compare [[27]] that's the original vs the current. The only difference is you added a couple sources. I understand that is also an important part of notability but those are your only contributions which therefore, at least in my opinion, the core of the content is still sock created. Now jump in User:Amatulic, where in his role as administrator he should review the csd. What is the process for contesting deletion? It is to check the rationale on the talkpage of the article which the now confirmed sock had a rationale right below that I also posted the SPI link for the reviewing admin (i assumed good faith they would actually do what they should)[[28]]. He not only ignores the other criteria but he accuses me of not providing any evidence...For fucks sake if he looked at the name on SPI Shiyasnazar and the sock Shiyasnazarptpm, it's not rocket science to say "wow this is the same user". Instead he wants to cover his incompetence by warning me for disruptive editing when a simple, "hey you know what I missed that, my bad. let's wait until the spi is complete and then we can." Instead this fucking guy wants to warn me for disruption. I don't think so! Even in disagreement with you, I stated why I thought you were wrong and we had a productive discourse, instead this dude wants to stay on the wrong side of WP:CIR at least what it appears like. That's what I am taking to ANI if he doesn't reply. Saying that he is incompetent may be harsh but negligent is not. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied, above, and on my talk page. If you want to talk about competence in the ANI case, be sure to mention yours regarding proper application of CSD tags A7, G5, and G11, which was disruptive. I apologize if my edit summary rationale seemed lazy, but the fact is, your tagging was out of line, and disruptive. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let;s play connect the dots than, [[29]] I nominated the article with two sources. Unique is owned by the Pageant owner, therefore that is not a source that is separate that can't be used to established notability. No reason you should know that unless you've been involved with the SPI since it started like I have. No you state that the tags A7 and G11 was disruptive. I find that odd considering you didn't object here [[30]] and only until I asked you to do a decent job researching did you grab for it like a man falling off a cliff. Now this SPI could have easily been decided on Username and editing habits similarities, instead you ignored this and decided to accuse me of not providing evidence when you didn't even ask. So there again how did I cause this problem? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this was a recreation by a sockpuppet. The article has had a couple sources added from the original CSD. Unique should be ignored out of hand, it is a publication directed and or owned by the owner of the project. The sources in my opinion doesn't really establish this as a notable event. The coverage is trival and not really about the pageant at all. My personal opinion is that this article also should not be included in the encyclopedia because it also encourages socking behaviors(I am perfectly aware that may not be a valid deletion rationale at afd just my opinion). In previous iteration the sock has stated they are employed by the owner and have the only permission to write about the pageants. In an odd irony I am too lazy to dig up that particular diff at this moment but if someone needs to see it ping me and I'll search it down if it's not deleted because I think it was a talkpage rationale on a deleted article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons, plus the sources are space fillers, almost certainly based on press releases from the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but the competition is noted by Indian media, which suggests it is not entirely unimportant. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant independent coverage of the pageant in The Hindu and other mainstream national Indian publications clearly meet WP:GNG. 108.65.78.29 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, as per WP:GNG. The pieces in 'the hindu' show no sign of journalistic insight, only reproduced quotes and press releases. If coverage is found and refs add to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Rankings Yearly Top 10[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. Original rationale was that this article violates WP:LISTCRUFT and is likely WP:OR - that remains valid. That sentiment has even been echoed by the article creator, however I did not feel comfortable proceeding with CSD G7. Giant Snowman 09:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems too random to me. -Koppapa (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, seems like an unnecessary fork from the overall world ranking article. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Knight satellite[edit]

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

Article consists of nothing but contradictory and mostly discredited pseudoscience. None of the sources could be described as reliable and in any case all three state that the topic is a hoax or fabrication. It doesn't seem notable as a hoax so I'd suggest deleting. W. D. Graham 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came across this while patrolling new articles & was going to PROD it but when I googled it I was surprised at how many hits it got. The original article took it as a for real object: I rewrote it. I think the Armagh planetarium is certainly a reputable source. I agree its pseudoscience: the article is about it as pseudoscience & I think the number of google hits demonstrates that its a notable bit of pseudoscience.TheLongTone (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS, Second Quantization (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling to find much in the way of reliable coverage (although I could look harder). Note that there was a British rocket called Black Knight which will show up if you search for this; e.g. most of the results on Google books are about the rocket, though the main Google search gives more material on this "satellite". --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable pseudoscience is still notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tautology. Second Quantization (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully, and don't split hairs. The wording might not be the best, but its clear what is meant: that pseudoscience that is widely believed might be notable. I don't believe in UFOs, but I would be a fool not to believe that there are people who do. A belief can be the subject of an article. There are, for instance, a number of articles on religions of one kind or another.TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Gaijin42. There is sufficient coverage to justify an article. The Black Knight satellite seems to be a combination of several different observations and theories, but joined together to have become an urban legend. This legend has had coverage since the 1960's. Martin451 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough coverage on it to make it notable, and we have reliable sources in the article. The theory is indeed pseudoscience; however, it is the theory that makes it notable, and all of the sources address it from that perspective. It could be improved and better referenced, but I do not see grounds for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Skeptoid is a great podcast but it's not reliable enough to use as the basis of an article; it's self published and limited by how well Dunning could research the topic in a week. [31] is a blog. Are we seriously going to keep an article on the basis of two self published sources? Second Quantization (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a blog, but one hosted by Armagh Planetarium, a government-funded body which describes itself as Ireland's leading centre for astronomical education. So hardly self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it's a planetarium and can describe itself any way it wants. I've heard of [32], and one would say it does quite a bit more for astronomy in Ireland than a planetarium for Children that receives funding for its cultural and leisure value. I'm sure it's a fine website and a fine blog piece, but lets not pretend that the blog is something other than it is; self published. Second Quantization (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its published by an institution (and a reputable one) not an individual. So, not self published.TheLongTone (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe coverage and very little of it. The best reference is the Armagh blog which comprehensively says that Black Knight is rubbish. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs does the article. Its a bit of pseodoscience: most sources ([like http://ufodigest.com/article/mysterious-black-knight-1119]) or Disneyland of the Gods by John Keel which apparently mentions it are ipso facto wobbly. The fact that an serious educational institution considers it worth debunking surely points to it being more than just another bit of random fruit loopery.TheLongTone (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I suppose - the difficulty I've had with sources is that there was a legitimate UK-built rocket/satellite launch vehicle called "Black Knight" in the 1960s which we cover as Black Knight (rocket). Searching for "black knight satellite" brings up bucket-loads of coverage in reliable sources but most of it relates to the UK rocket, not the conspiracy theory. Adding the words "conspiracy theory" or similar greatly limits the source list. The sources provided aren't particularly strong and one legitimate organisation addressing the conspiracy isn't exactly "significant coverage". Until we have more to substantiate that this is a widely discussed conspiracy theory, I don't think it really meets our criteria. Stalwart111 09:16, 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 16:15, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on my Google search, this does appear to be notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also based on a Google search. Orser67 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can reputable media reports be located? Can the article stand on its own with weasel-worded content such as the material on Van Daaniken and Tesla deleted? If not, perhaps this can still be merged with one of the UFO articles out there. Just because something gets a lot of Google hits does not mean it's worthy of inclusion. I just googled the phrase "Justin Bieber is a space alien" and Google identified 6.6 million hits. That doesn't mean an article on the topic needs to be made or the topic even should be addressed in Bieber's article. Is Black Knight discussed in any major magazines? Has CNN done anything on it - even a Jeannie Moos humor piece? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 14:41, 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, Tawker (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies GNG. The article cites at least one reliable, independent source devoted entirely to this subject. Skeptoid is a respected podcast, and if we ruled out articles that the author could research in a week, we wouldn't accept newspapers as reliable sources. It also cites some more sources, one of which (a TIME magazine article) I added. The planetarium blog is borderline, per USERG, but it is described as their "official" blog, so they endorse its contents. Note that the NFRINGE guidelines only require one reliable source: "A fringe subject ... is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." RockMagnetist (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 11.2 million Google hits say it's a keeper. --uKER (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all the people invoking Google hits should read GOOGLEHITS. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the "many hits" claim completely ignores the extended commentary above. There are many google hits because there are many other (non-conspiracy theory) results for "black knight satellite", especially since a legitimate space agency had a very real rocket called "Black Knight" which was going to be used to launch satellites. None of those results relate (in any way) to this subject. Stalwart111 02:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there is also a real satellite called "Black Knight", launched last October. That probably accounts for further results even once the sounding rocket is removed. --W. D. Graham 18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Google hits are meaningless per Stalwart111 and RockMagnetist. The article seems to rely mostly on a blog and a podcast, which are not WP:RS. The TIME magazine article is not actually relevant to the topic. I can find no other relevant RS. Article fails WP:GNG. -- 101.117.56.61 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Donald Keyhoe who seems to have originated this. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea itself seems fairly obviously to be pseudoscience, but within the "fringe" community it's clearly something significant. We should therefore cover the topic, whilst making it quite clear within the article that no reputable scientist believes it's true. RomanSpa (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is Skeptoid is a reliable source? The existing guidelines would say it is not because it is self-published. However, it cites sources, has won some awards, and is syndicated with five radio stations, one of which is hosted by the National Science Foundation. This seems like a time to ignore all rules. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's wrong with maintaining it as an "urban myth" topic? Unverified legends have always been valid parts of culture. Kortoso (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by it not being "notable as a hoax" is that the hoax itself doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. If we had an article for every crank or fringe theory then it would lend far too much weight to these minority viewpoints. I believe that this is a case where the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article. --W. D. Graham 18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry I thought this discussion was from March 6th Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 6 This article is erroneously listed as a discussion from the 6th of April. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alexander (lawyer)[edit]

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

Advertisement, plain and simple. Contains exactly what lawyers normally put into their advertisement: a list of big cases won-- a list of prominent clients, and a list of all the associations they are members of. Nothing else. Not to my surprise, an apparent autobiography. Not really to my surprise, here for over 5 years. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does seem to be promotional and not very biographical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a run of the mill lawyer. He seems to have done a great job as a zealous advocate for his clients, and was part of a team that won millions of dollars in settlements for his clients. Good for him -- even better for his clients. However, he was just doing his job; anything less would be legal malpractice. Absolutely nothing he's done professionally is especially unique or notable. Some examples: while he's been on his state bar board, he never achieved the presidency; there's no evidence of notable honors such as law review or Inns of Court; no notable cases; no service in statewide commissions. The articles he's allegedly written are a legal blog - not peer reviewed. The whole tone is that of a LinkedIn profile. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no indication of notability; just another lawyer. TJRC (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll leave aside the acerbic remarks... --Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly promotional, and the many low-quality sources are insufficient to pass WP:GNG (what we need is a smaller number of much higher quality ones). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and autobiographical. There is a very little notability here but he is not notable enough in his own right. Would anybody else think to write about him if he didn't do it himself? I suspect not. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 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. This is a SNOW deletion, combined with a speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Kansas League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think it is a notable league, and the fact that it only uses a Primary Source. Even though it has some of the most populated schools in Kansas, I just don't think it is notable. I created a couple of leagues for KSHSAA last year (2013), and was told that they weren't notable. Corkythehornetfan^(talk) 04:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just for the same reason I gave in the last AFD on this page, which resulted in "delete" -- not sure how it managed to come back. I'm also nominating for Speedy as a G4-Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ever After High characters[edit]

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

There is nothing here that's encyclopedic and/or properly verified (well, verified at all). The descriptions etc. are all OR, and a short list of important characters and their voice actors is the most that we should have--and we have that already, in the main article, Ever After High. The rest is, well, fancruft--sorry. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This unreferenced mess should probably be on a wikia. That said, I tend to find lists of characters useful and often, encyclopedic (notable). But this would really need a source for me to consider a week keep instead. As it is, I am leaning to a week delete... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to parent article Ever After High, which currently has nothing but the names of the characters and the voice actors, no descriptions. Character lists (and not merely names) are standard for serial media and franchises. As far as this list being "OR", there might be some flights of interpretive fancy that could be trimmed out, but otherwise basic descriptions of the characters are verifiable from the webseries itself and even the toy line's packaging (which presumably has some character descriptions, or maybe my childhood reading the detailed G.I. Joe file cards and Transformers tech specs spoiled me in that regard). We really need to stop wasting time at AFD just to deal with content development issues related to notable topics. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The real waste of time lies in keeping out fan cruft. There isn't a single source cited, and the author thought that adding links to the Mattel shop counted as verification. I have no objection to the content in the main article being expanded somewhat, but not with the current material. I'm not speculating on your childhood, but we need to remember we're an encyclopedia, not a place for OR or trivia--or details lifted from primary tech specs. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the verifiability policy and the notability guidelines. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate? Right now you just have a WP:VAGUEWAVE. I explained above why this is verifiable, and the series (the parent article of which merely points to this list) is notable. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. The article as it stands is unsourced and I can't find much that would count toward WP:N, though there is some (things that are close to passing mentions). I like character lists as reasonable breakout articles, but would at least like to see this article have primary sources in it. Hobit (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to have any sources, and looks remarkably like advertising in support of an underwhelming toy line. RomanSpa (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hillsong Global Project. (Merge all into Hillsong Global Project) j⚛e decker ^talk 22:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project Português[edit]

(View AfD · Stats)

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

The collection of "Global Project" albums should be merged into Hillsong Global Project. This includes Global Project Portuguese, Global Project Español, Global Project Pусский and Global Project Svenska. None are individually notable while together they may have enough press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 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, buff bills 7701 00:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete all does not meet WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nominator: definitely a notable series, but the individual albums are just as clearly not notable on their own. --Slashme (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph R. Chenelly[edit]

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

Promotional articles on very minor figure. Tagged for A7, but it's been here for several years, and it does assert somer minor importance.

Notability would be either as a correspondent or a politician. As a politician is absurd--the height of his career is as a member of the local school board. As a politician her reported on a long series of military campaigns, , but the only thing of any possible significance is that he was the first one present at 2 or 3 separate events over the years. He's on a totally unofficial list of the best 100 military journalists by a NGO without an article on WP. There's no major award, just county man of the year from a political party committee. The sources are 95% his own articles, one or two local articles, and an Army paper.

The promotionalism is implicit in the wildly extensive detailed coverage of the most minor events, and the use of descriptions of the various events as filler. This is a tribute or commemoration, not an encyclopedia article. Even if written in a way proportional to the importance, there's still no real notability.

To anticipate an objection, we do have a good many other articles of this sort. It's time we removed them. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. A fine war correspondent, I'm sure, but a non-notable one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- GreenC 15:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the CNN and Los Angeles Times articles seem to bring him up to pass notability, if only barely. Much of its tone is so over-the-top that it makes it seem silly, but ordinary editing could fix that. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 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} 00:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless I see some editing, this may have to be deleted per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the tone's not great, but some of the available sources seem promising. Tezero (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tend towards delete the CNN article isn't about him, the only mention of Cheneelly is "An article written by Sgt. Joseph R. Chenelly and posted on the Marines' Web ". Leaves only the LA Times to talk about Chenelly the person. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:35, 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. Tawker (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go (Baby V.O.X Mini-Album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM JMHamo (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 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) 01:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing at all, and no indication that this actually satisfies the notability criteria at WP:NALBUM. --DAJF (talk) 01:40, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not sourced adequately. RomanSpa (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zbyszek Zalinski[edit]

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

A radio personality, but I am afraid he doesn't meet the threshold of WP:BIO. The article cites two reliable sources, and I cannot find any further ones; yet only one of them ([33]) is about the subject - the other mentions him in passing. I think it's the case of WP:UPANDCOMING / WP:TOOSOON; the single good ref describes him as a "rising star" - but I don't think he has risen enough to be notable yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: two sources are about him (perhaps someone didn't look "below the fold" in the "Diversities" article to find the profile of him), and the "Our radio stations..." article talks about him to quite an extent, not just "in passing". PamD 20:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD:Diversity, written in first person, is hardly reliable, it's a self-written company order ad piece ("diversity employee profile"). The few sentences at [34] are not what I'd classify at "quite an extent". All I see there about the subject is this: "[show]'s researcher and contributor, Zbyszek Zalinski, is, as you might guess from the name, Polish. ... his own family roots lie in a town, Lviv, now in Ukraine, but once part of Poland. Maybe he has conflicted loyalties". Please tell me what am I missing there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (with no prejudice to recreation later) - With every respect to the subject, per nominators rationale, this would appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Doesn't appear (yet) to meet WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:ENTERTAINER. Guliolopez (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: imho, the en wiki AfD process is nonlinear and arbitrary, with capricious, unpredictable outcomes frankly pegged often to summary execut^H^H^H^H^H^H voting, e.g Agnieszka's Dowry, a "non notable" 18 years old print as books/permanent web installation poetry serial with rare shared ISSN. So... fwiw, Zalinski co-wrote "The Media and the Campaign" in this academic book - http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=0230500382 -- whether that provides escape velocity for attaining notability, devil knows. --Mareklug ^talk 05:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I have no idea what the first three quarters of your comment mean, but as for critique of AfD process, I think en wiki is much better than the chaos on pl wiki. At least en wiki has rules, pl wiki has primarily "widzimisie" logic. For book authors, see WP:AUTHOR. 1. no. 2. no. 3. no. 4. no. So, no, his book co-authorsip doesn't seem to matter, as far as I can tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I guess we need more opinions here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. For me, the solid coverage of the recent Irish Examiner article plus the more marginal coverage in the other sources just gets him over the notability bar. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the single source dedicated to him. GNG demands other sources, and the few other we have are brief passing mentions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements for either media personalities or for writers. Not enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SamanthaPuckettIndo: Read WP:NOTAVOTE first, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pipariya Parivar[edit]

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

Appears to be about a family in Gujarat, India, with no claim made for notability. A previous discussion suggested that CSD A7 may not apply to "an extended family over time" which this is likely to be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_44#Does_A7_apply_to_a_tribe_.2F_family_.2F_surname_.3F : Noyster (talk), 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost looks like it is about multiple minor Hindu goddeses, but the article is very hard to read. No clear statement of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no claim to notability. The article's subject is unclear; the only intelligible section bears no apparent relation to the title, and is an unencyclopaedic version of a religious story without references. BethNaught (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article created by SPA User:Pipariyah fails WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McKeown[edit]

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

No indication of notability in sources, which do not describe him, are not in high quality secondary sources, or only mention him in passing Yobol (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is there a reason this AFD was created on the same page as the previous one? Each AFD nomination, even if for the same page, should have a different title. Jinkinson talk to me 20:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Never mind, I just fixed it.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article probably has to be improved, but not deleted. The subject is a well known alternative medicine researcher, leads a non-pharmaceutical asthma treatment school in Ireland, and among the Western researchers of Buteyko method he is the most successful. After the death of the Russian medical practitioner Konstantin Buteyko, who invented a specific breathing method to control asthma, his relatives and followers started a "patent" war, even though the invention was not patented and everybody could practice this method. There are 3 schools today: 1. Moscow school led by Buteylo's x-patient & x-lover, whose family fights everybody else, using fake documentation, claiming that only they have the right to teach the Buteyko method and trying to push everybody else out of the field, 2. Voronezh school, led by Buteyko's daughter and her family (http://www.buteyko.ru/rus/voronezh/index.shtml), and 3. Western School, led by the subject of the article for deletion, who was personally certified by Mr Buteyko and approved for starting a Buteyko school in Ireland by Mr Buteyko's daughter, shortly after Buteyko's death. For right now, only one MOSCOW(!) School is presented in wikipedia, all info about other participants have been constantly deleted (I tried to add some Western school info into Buteyko method page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buteyko_method). Therefore, I think that constant attempts to delete the article have something to do with this fight over the non-existing patent rights. The subject of the article for deletion also has a 2-3 high-ranked on Amazon books (one was republished 3 times and was purchased by many public libraries according to WordCat), also I know that Wiley has recently signed a publishing contract with him for one of the new books on Buteyko method technique, ISBN is not yet available. Please do not delete it, please improve if you have time, the article will grow in the future and will become bigger and better. I'll help with editing, translations and source verification if needed. Thanks.--sobaka_kachalova 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Buteyko method as lacking in depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there will be enough coverage within a year or even a few months, he just got a 6 figures publishing contract, which makes it 3 high-ranked books and proves that their author is well known in his field. He is also a frequent speaker on Irish TV in health related programs with popular TV hosts (I will send a proof link later).--sobaka_kachalova 05:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly non-notable and heavily promotional. Alternatively, could be redirected to Buteyko method. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to improve the article with Russian and Irish sources today-tomorrow. Appreciate any help. Thanks.--sobaka_kachalova 22:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep and improve- The subject does pass the notability criteria, here are some medicine related sources:

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2099/12/31/buteyko-breathing-method.aspx ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} - large interview on Irish TV with Joseph Mercola

http://doctorstevenpark.com/expert-interview-buteyko-breathing-with-patrick-mckeown

http://www.dentaltown.com/dentaltown/Article.aspx?i=334&aid=4553 Irish dental newspaper, which has 2 of his articles (listed here: http://www.dentaltown.com/dentaltown/Article.aspx?action=BYAUTHOR&a=627)

http://runnersconnect.net/running-interviews/how-to-breathe-when-running Interview with P.McKeown in a periodical for athletes.

http://www.buteyko.ie/images/pdf/Irish_Dentist_Journal_article.pdf Irish Dentist Journal. Cranio Facial changes and mouth breathing. June 2011

plus books reviews --sobaka_kachalova 02:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Asthma-Free-Naturally-Patrick-McKeown/dp/0954599608 22 customers reviews

http://www.amazon.com/Close-Your-Mouth-Buteyko-Handbook/dp/0954599616 32 customers reviews

https://www.forewordreviews.com/reviews/asthma-free-naturally/

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_66%3A9781573243728 30 customers reviews --sobaka_kachalova 03:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Media Coverage with multiple links to the interviews here: http://www.buteykoclinic.com/press-media.php Also mentioned here as the person, who brought Buteyko method to Ireland (http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/my-miracle-asthma-cure-26001650.html). The above should be more than enough to prove notability. --sobaka_kachalova 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs) — SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Mentioned as a sleep expert(http://www.independent.ie/woman/diet-fitness/is-snoring-wrecking-your-marriage-26762839.html) and internationally renown Buteyko practitioner (mp3 interview with Dr Steven Park http://snoring.ie/drstevenparkinterview.php) --sobaka_kachalova 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

large interview on iTunes (listed there as #6) https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/primal-diet-modern-health/id577470427--sobaka_kachalova 03:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Almost all of the above websites are either not reliable (Mercola, amazon.com reviews (really?)), are not independent of the subject, or only mention him in passing. Yobol (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Linked the article from Buteyko method. Also probably an extra section (or one) should be added: one on his work regarding sleep apnea and asthma&dentistry relation (heavy medical terminology - I cannot do it myself).Thanks. --sobaka_kachalova 15:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the author of the article, going to remove my Keep Vote from the top and add it after the red Relisted notice, since I added my Keep after it was counted already, and now it does not show up in User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's/. Hoping the article will survive. --sobaka_kachalova 15:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Mentioned here http://www.lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/315225/1/MAR14Art2.pdf as "internationally recognized Buteyko expert" (p.16) --sobaka_kachalova 19:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. sobaka_kachalova 21:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Keep [35] counts, as does other newspapers in Ireland covering him in detail. Checking Highbeam [36] I see The Irish Times, Evening Herald, and various other newspapers do cover him as well. Dream Focus 22:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused at how that source is considered to be covering him "in detail". It has one and a half sentence describing him, and has two quotes from him. It covers Butyko in detail, not McKeown, it seems. Yobol (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions he brought the technique to Ireland, it mentions he suffered from Asthma for 25 years, him trying to convince the Asthma Society of his method, etc. So detailed about him, content not length. My highbeam account expired sometime ago, so I can't read the other articles in detail, but he is mentioned in the summary. Dream Focus 01:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have different definitions of what "significant coverage" means; one and a half sentences doesn't cut it for me. *shrug*. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the links to scientific conference materials and announcements. Info posted for such temporary events is not expected to be long, should not be widely popular (besides the research field is narrow). Even though you called them "barely functioning websites" in order to delete a part of the article, this links are good enough for temporary scientific events. And they are reliable, independent and acceptable secondary sources. sobaka_kachalova 04:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

~~Delete~~ Comment as nominator. Almost all sources only mention the topic in passing, or are not reliable sources. Yobol (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol, the nomination is counted as a Delete !vote, a second Delete is redundant. -- GreenC 15:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There are several mp3 media interviews with him (see above), at least 2 or 3 are longer than an hour. I think WP:N is proven. --sobaka_kachalova 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, a link to itunes isn't a reliable source. We need to establish that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The sources presented so far are either not reliable, not independent, or not significant in coverage. Yobol (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the sentence from Buteyko method as non-notable? Aviva is the 5th largest insurance group in the world, and they offer McKeown's breathing program based on Buteyko method. The company is well reputable, and if they decided to offer this program, it means that the program is worth of mentioning in Buteyko method article in wiki. And McKeown is Buteyko's former student, accredited directly by him. How come it is not enough notable? Why did you delete referenced parts of Patrick McKeown article? The references clear show that he does conduct the research the paragraph was talking about, and plus - there are other multiple references which prove it. Besides, wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and media coverage is acceptable as well depending on the source quality. --sobaka_kachalova 02:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Here are 2 other large interviews: Dr Steven Park with McKeown http://snoring.ie/drstevenparkinterview.php - (alternative link, same interview) http://doctorstevenpark.com/expert-interview-buteyko-breathing-with-patrick-mckeown, articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2099/12/31/buteyko-breathing-method.aspx ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} - Joseph Mercola with McKeown - from the listed above (there are more than 2 - see the above) sobaka_kachalova 02:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

FYI:WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Stop deleting parts of the text together with the references "for notability reasons" in both Buteyko method and Patrick McKeown. Notability applies only to the subject of the article, and not to the links. If you believe that the citation is unreliable, not independent or needs an additional coverage, please mark it as a HTML comment and place a "Citation needed" template with your comment in it. Thanks. sobaka_kachalova 04:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. sobaka_kachalova 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Applied for Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. --sobaka_kachalova 12:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Keep Recognized expert in his field who often appears in the press in that capacity (mostly in the UK, Ireland and Australia). This is per WP:PROF #7 "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." I found so many with ProQuest it's too much to transfer here but contact WP:REX for verification. Below is one example from the Irish Times in which he is called an "expert", plus two other sources: a book review, and a source showing he has been influential.

Sylvia Thompson. "Health Board". Irish Times [Dublin] 10 Sep 2013. Abstract: "nHealth show: The newly branded Your Health Show (formerly Rude Health Show) goes ahead on Saturday and Sunday in the RDS, Ballsbridge, Dublin. Nutritional guru Patrick Holford; GP and obesity specialist Dr Eva Orsmond; asthma expert Patrick McKeown; medical herbalist Vivienne Campbell; and David Flynn from the Happy Pear vegetarian cafe in Greystones, Co Wicklow are among those giving talks and cookery demonstrations." (Database: ProQuest)
Journal of the Australian Traditional-Medicine Society. Mar2014, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p50-50. Abstract: "An interview with Mim Beim, member of the Australian Traditional Medicine Society (ATMS) professional organization, is presented. She says that she was taught a variety of modalities, like nutrition and massage, when she studied naturopathy. She emphasizes that Irish Buteyko practitioner Patrick McKeown has influenced her practice in natural medicine. She also stresses her perception about the growth in natural medicine." (Database: EBSCO Host)
Wendy Parry. Coventry Evening Telegraph. 01/28/2006. Abstract: Book Review Asthma-free Naturally by Patrick McKeown. (Database: EBSCO Host)

-- GreenC 15:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite dubious that WP:PROF applies to McKeown. As far as I can tell, he isn't an academic, which is the defining criteria of WP:PROF. He holds no academic position, nor has he published any academic research in scholarly journals. Seems a stretch to use this criteria to justify his inclusion. Yobol (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thank you to GreenC for WP:REX hint, I left a verification request there. --sobaka_kachalova 15:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Delete. I haven't followed up on all the sources cited here, but being mentioned in a newspaper as a practitioner, or spokesman for a method does not notability make in my book. The alleged interview with Mercola on Irish TV is not an interview, it is an extended promotional video. No questions were asked, only McKeown is speaking. As for the sources in the article, none of them even mention him (they talk about the Buteyko method, but not him) except for his own resume and a very spammy runner's site. Not convinced that last one isn't paid for. Spinning Spark 22:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Mercola interview, it's not just the video. Below is the long text, entirely written by Mercola with his citations from McKeown. In particular, in paragraph 6 from the top, Mercola states, "Patrick McKeown, who was qualified by Dr. Buteyko in 2002, the year before the doctor’s death, is now one of the top teachers of the Buteyko method in the world. He’s been teaching full-time in his native Ireland and abroad for the last 11 years." (source: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2099/12/31/buteyko-breathing-method.aspx ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}) --sobaka_kachalova 02:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

And what makes Mercola a reliable source? The whole site is spam and the intention of the articles is to sell stuff. The page you link ends with a plug for a DVD and an "add to cart" button. That says all you need to know about this site. Spinning Spark 09:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Mercola:
the existence of Joseph Mercola proves that he is notable and worth of citing. Besides, he is member of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
For McKeown:
Wikipedia:Notability (people)|Additional criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards."
Thus,
for WP:AUTHOR: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", - please see Patrick McKeown, this discussion, ProQuest, and the web.
for WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", - please see his book Asthma-Free Naturally: Everything You Need to Know to Take Control of Your Asthma (3rd ed.), ISBN 9781573243728. sobaka_kachalova 12:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Notability is not inherited, McKeown does not become notable just because Mercola is notable (and after seeing his website I would question that as well).

You keep referring to ProQuest. I was going to ask you what ProQuest think McKeown's h-index is, but I took a look for myself instead. Proquest has NO RESULTS FOR MCKEOWN WHATSOEVER.

Likewise, I am seeing no evidence under the WP:AUTHOR criteria that he is widely cited. What's his h-index?

Again, under WP:AUTHOR, where are the links to the book, feature-length film, or multiple articles of which his work is the subject? Not got any so far. Plenty of the sources in the article discuss the Buteyko method, but far from indicating that McKeown played a major role, they fail to even mention him. Spinning Spark 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that Mercola is worth of citing. Not, that McKeown is notable because of him. McKeown's notability is supported but multiple testimonials, not just one. --sobaka_kachalova 15:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Posted a sources verification request to WP:REX --sobaka_kachalova 15:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Fine, but proving that McKeown has published papers does not, by itself, do anything to enhance his notability. Many people publish, but they are not all notable. It is how much others (reliable sources) have cited him, or discussed him that counts. Spinning Spark 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+His bestselling book "Asthma Free Naturally" - Reviews (simple search) https://www.google.com/search?q=Asthma+Free+Naturally+reviews&rlz=1C1TSNF_enUS463US463&oq=Asthma+Free+Naturally+reviews&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.4253j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8, Also see a couple of review links above, plus it was cited here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0422763812000520

+wide media coverage.
should be enough altogether for notability proof.--sobaka_kachalova 01:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Give it a rest, those so-called reviews are all sites trying to sell books. They are not independent, so do not confer notability. One citation in an obscure Egyptian journal is nowhere near enough to establish notability. Spinning Spark 01:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for more info. Have some patience. --sobaka_kachalova 02:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Delete. No indepth coverage in reliable sources..advertorials on non-RS websites & promotional videos do not count.94.195.46.224 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presently, the existing coverage of Patrick McKeown in reliable sources is not significant enough to meet the WP:GNG or WP:PROF criteria. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spark and Sobaka's interaction above make it clear that this individual is not notable, and even if some borderline notability can be established, WP:NOTPROMOTION would serve to bar inclusion. Wikipedia is not the venue to promote this individual's works. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPROMOTION does not apply here - the style of the article is not promotional (to my eye), and anyway it can be changed to more encyclopedic by 2 or 3 minor edits. The fact the someone wrote a bestselling book has no power to bar him/her from been included to wiki. Writing such a piece is not a crime which could "bar", and even conversely...--sobaka_kachalova 05:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Comment: This does not look like a fair discussion process and looks rather like lobbying because the majority of votes against the article is coming from the people, directly related to conventional medicine, which the Buteyko method opposes. As well as Buteyko method article seems to be occupied by the same type of editors - it's overall sceptical, every positive results have been deleted as "poorly referenced". Same thing had happened to Konstantin Buteyko himself, who was bullied by the Russian conventional doctors through his entire lifetime. However his method has gotten a lot of followers worldwide, among which McKeown is probably the most notable one. --sobaka_kachalova 20:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm an electrical engineer. Not that it should make any difference if I was a medic. Maybe there's a reason it's poorly sourced... Spinning Spark 21:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spinning, it is very easy to claim absence of reliable sources in the field of alternative medicine, because the only sources undoubtedly accepted as reliable are the conventional medicine scientific periodicals and other works, which would most likely oppose the alt. medicine views and try to block them for multiple reasons, including financial. Everything else is considered either unreliable, or non-independent, or "unimportant" (c. Yobol), :) And that in turn, I believe, creates sort of a bug in the proof system. The alternative medicine exists in some kind of "unreliable" niche, beyond which it is rarely allowed. And that is why Buteyko himself was not accepted and blocked in Russia with his new method. Because it was not beneficial from the conventional medicine point of view: if everybody treats asthma by simply correcting his/her breath, what the doctors are going to do then (serious question with a lot of money and many professional medical reputations at risk)? The method itself works, I saw it. However, conventional meds still play sceptical. --sobaka_kachalova 01:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
See, there are two different issues here. The first is whether McKeown meets the guidelines for inclusion. The second is what our guidelines require. You appear to be arguing the latter, which is not going to prevail here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mum used the Buteyko method in her last years and found it a great comfort. I have no problem with it, my problem is with the notability of this person. That may change, though, with more significant coverage in reliable sources. But he's not there yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More book reviews for Asthma free naturally: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-236034409.html, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-188952493.html, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-135599428.html, http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Patrick+McKeown%22+%22asthma+free+naturally%22 --sobaka_kachalova 05:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)
Delete: Most people who are competent in their profession are not notable, there's no shame in that. Wikipedia is not linkedin.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the "shame" and "competence" get to do with that? Someone does not have to be "competent" to meet WP:N:) --sobaka_kachalova 01:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it can be just the opposite. My point is that being a competent professional doesn't make one notable by itself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, (see the above discussion with SpinningSpark): Additional criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Any means any one, and I got 2. Competence/incompetence has nothing to do with WP:AUTHOR.

Delete. He is certainly a "practitioner" of this "therapy", but there's no evidence to show that he's a notable one. Yes, he has written books, but this is not enough: we need evidence that these works are regarded as substantial and significant by his colleagues. As someone else has just remarked, you're not notable just for doing your job; in a specialist area like this you become notable if there is evidence that your peers in that area provide evidence that you are. If other "practitioners" of this "therapy" start citing this guy as important, we can take another look. For now, he's just another "practitioner" of a "therapy". If he later becomes notable for this, or becomes a media star thanks to his "6 figures publishing contract", we can take another look then. RomanSpa (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His colleagues and peers are other BBT practitioners, majority of them have no special education in medicine and aren't notable themselves, therefore these references are not accepted by wikipedia. Media sources have also some reflection of that, but wiki hardly accepts media as well, am I wrong? He gave over a hundred interviews to the media, and he is quiet notable within those countries where he practices. And his book received multiple reviews necessary to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. He did some related clinical studies and research on his own (not "just another practitian"), this part was deleted from the article on April 12 ("as unimportant"), and I am waiting for more info on that from WP:REX. --sobaka_kachalova 10:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Three of the links provided by Redtiger indicate that the book is deemed reliable and important enough. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Saffron Swastika[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies criterion 1. Important book on Hindutva, referred and discussed by many books. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not satisfy 1 at all. None of those links given any coverage. And none are about the book, just passing mentions. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, none are about the book? Those clearly show the name of the book. They show for example that prominent scholars and politicians like LK Advani have cited the book. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A single mention does not give the coverage needed to pass WP:GNG, and none of the sources given actually discuss this particular book. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before voting, could the author improve the article to demonstrate the notability of this book? Just describing the book isn't going to cut it. What is its impact? What is its influence? Bali88 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Delete - So far I haven't seen anything that adds up to notability. If authors can prove that, I will change my vote. :-) Bali88 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redriect to the author as unreferenced. Neither the article nor the links above contain anything that looks like in depth coverage to me. Name dropping and passing mentions are not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 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: [42]

Elsts books on Hindu revivalism, of which this one is one of the most prominent, are often discussed by professors, scholars, critics. Elst also participated/published his Hindu revivalism research in conferences like the World Archaeology Congress, International Ramayana Conference and the South Asia Conference, and journals and book chapters in scholarly books (for example by professors Arvind Sharma, Edwin Bryant & Laurie Patton,Herman Siemens & Vasti Roodt,Hans Geybels & Walter Van Herck, Angela Marcantonio & Girish Nath Jha, and more)and bestellers (Daniel Pipes book), and in an official publication by the Bar Council of India Trust. He is widely seen as the main or one of the main propenents "sympathetic" to the "Hindu side", for example by critical scholars like Meera Nanda or also by many Hindu authors. His books have been reviewed and discussed by Harvard professors, other professors, leading scholars and journalists (Sanjay Subramaniam, Meera Nanda....). What more can one ask? Some of his books have been translated into other languages. Elst says, "I have crossed swords with Mira Kamdar, Christophe Jaffrelot, Meera Nanda, Amber Habib, MF Husain as well as his critics, DN Jha, Harbans Mukhia, Wiliam Dalrymple, Edward Said, Ramachandra Guha, Ashish Nandy, Edward Luce, Vikas Swarup, Martha Nussbaum etc. The record shows that I have not limited myself to the gullible and the already-converted."

The book Saffron Swastika includes parts of his Ph.D. thesis. It has also been reviewed by professor R.N. Rao and Koenraad Elst himself has reviewed books on this topic in academic journals (for example the book by D.N. Jha).

Some quotes:

"A very ambitious 2-volume book, of which the only shortcoming is that it could have been even more complete. It dissects processes of slander and its application to the media’s hostile treatment of the organized Hindu movement. It is the only publication in the world (except for its sequel, Return of the Swastika) to analyze and refute the now-common allegation that Guru Golwalkar in his book We (1939) proves to be some sort of Nazi. "

"In that year, I also brought out the two-volume The Saffron Swastika. On the Notion of ""Hindu Fascism", the only book in the world to analyse this much-used line of discourse (except for my sequel from 2006, Return of the Swastika), both by foreign India-watchers and by the Indian secularists"

Bouchet, an expert on Savitri Devi, reviewed the book with a focus on Savitri. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)— Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do you have the knowledge/interest in this topic to improve the article up to wikipedia standards? Many articles are kept after being improved during AFD nominations. The issue with this particular book is not the controversial nature (trust me, there are *plenty* of controversial books on here). The issue is that the article simply describes the book. There is no information describing the notability of this item. Has it sold a lot of copies? Did it spur controversy when it was published? Why should we care about this book? What was its influence on society? This is the type of information that needs to be included in the article. If you can provide this information, please do so! :-) Bali88 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NBOOK gives clear criteria for support the notability of books. Having searched for appropriate, reliable sources I have not found enough to get this book across the line. There is no evidence that the content of the book is an issue. If there are sources that I have missed then by all means add them to the article rather than pointing the finger at editors who are participating in a good faith discussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing noteworthy. Seems like a series of promotion for several books by the same author.Iniciativass (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have enough time to expand six articles in just less than one week, while I have to fear that Darkness Shines will revert my edits again as he did before with my talk page comments, but I have added some more sources below

The book contains also parts from his Ph.D. thesis from the Catholic University of Leuven.
The book has been reviewed by professor Ramesh Rao who praised it as an important book and a tour de force. ^[1]
Christian Bouchet, an expert on Savitri Devi, criticized Elst's book The Saffron Swastika for having placed far too much trust in Savitri Devi's autobiography, and for claiming that Savitri Devi was bisexual.^[2]
The author describes the book in the following words:

"A very ambitious 2-volume book, of which the only shortcoming is that it could have been even more complete. It dissects processes of slander and its application to the media’s hostile treatment of the organized Hindu movement. It is the only publication in the world (except for its sequel, Return of the Swastika) to analyze and refute the now-common allegation that Guru Golwalkar in his book We (1939) proves to be some sort of Nazi. "

"In that year, I also brought out the two-volume The Saffron Swastika. On the Notion of ""Hindu Fascism", the only book in the world to analyse this much-used line of discourse (except for my sequel from 2006, Return of the Swastika), both by foreign India-watchers and by the Indian secularists"

The book is cited as an example on the discourse on Hindu revivalism in the World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires and ‎Paul Jackson and in Racism: A Selected Bibliography by Albert J. Wheeler, in Tom Brass book "Latin American Peasants", in history professor Arnold P. Kaminsky book India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic, and other books.
Edwin Bryant notes that it is one of Elsts notable works. ^[3]
Outlook India reported that the very prominent politician L.K. Advani has a "heavily marked" copy of the book from which Advani quoted freely the passages that discussed him. ^[4]
JY Camus called the work Elsts "magnum opus". ^[5] It is also cited by Ian McDonald ^[6], CE Polisi ^[7] and others. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Review
^ "The eternal return of Nazi nonsense: Savitri Devi's last writings". Savitri Devi Mukherji: Le National-Socialisme et la Tradition Indienne, with contributions by Vittorio de Cecco, Claudio Mutti and Christian Bouchet, published in the series Cahiers de la Radicalité by Avatar-éditions, Paris/Dublin 2004.
^ 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 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”;.....
^ Outlook Apr 8-14, 2008
^ Camus, J. Y. (2007). The European extreme right and religious extremism. Středoevropské politické studie (CEPSR), (4), 263-279.
^ Hindu nationalism, cultural spaces, and bodily practices in India
^ Universal rights and cultural relativism: Hinduism and Islam deconstructed

Comment Darkness Shines is an experienced editor and their reverts have been appropriate. Please assume good faith. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also an editor who has been blocked lots of times for not being "appropriate". This is not a personal attack, just an observation following your comment.--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on new sources 1. The Ramesh N. Rao review is self-published. It looks like it has been reprinted from elsewhere, but I can't find any indication of where. 2. "The eternal return" was written by the author of the book. 3. "Indo-Arayan" is just a single mention in the preface. 4. No idea what "Outlook" refers to, google doesn't appear to know either. 5. One mention in a footnote and listed in the bibliography. 6. Single mention. 7. ???. Calypsomusic, the idea is to find sources that discuss the book, not just mention it. None of these would be useful in constructing an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what my block log has to do with this AFD? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your block log was presented to show how you were deemed inappropriate in various instances by various admins only after the editor Flat Out called your edits appropriate. Your block log was not presented until then. You should first question Flat Out on why your high edit counts make your reverting on article justifiable and then your second question should have been to Calypsomusic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the edits and good work done by User:Calypsomusic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you ought to have looked a little closer at this "good work", one SPS, I have removed that, another SPS which violated BLP so I have removed that, various stuff cited to THE INDO-ARYAN CONTROVERSY Evidence and inference in Indian history None of which was in the source, so removed per BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs/tweets of notable people are reliable sources of references for their views as long as the view is clearly noted as being their own and not of blogspot.com or twitter.com. Quoting WP:SPS; " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In such case, views of Ramesh Nagaraj Rao, expressed in his blog are perfectly okay to have in the article. Similarly, Elst's own blog is also good enough to source his own quotes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are being used to cite statements by other living people. which the ones I removed were doing. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The book has been reviewed by professor Ramesh Nagaraj Rao who praised it as an important book and a "tour de force"." How is this citing statement by other living people? Stop edit warring by removing this statement from article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Darkness Shines has removed most of the sources I added to the article, including reviews by university professors. He is claiming that various stuff is cited to professor Edwin Bryant, it is actually just one sentence, and it is from one of professor Bryants books: "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”;....." --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, that was cited to THE INDO-ARYAN CONTROVERSY Evidence and inference in Indian history, and none of it was in that source. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Calypsomusic has done an excellent job in ferreting out every potential reference. At best, there is a single cite that discusses the book in enough depth to be useful in building an article (and at the moment, I can't prove that review isn't self-published). There's just not enough out there to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one is important book, it includes different stories about Indian affairs that occurred in 20th century, it is actually a popular book even for this period. Fundarise (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)— Fundarise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete because WP:NBOOK gives clear instructions on notability which this book fails to meet them. Bisswajit 08:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against WP:BKCRIT ,also seems heavily dependent on qoutation by one news against wiki:NEWS.

Note: the above unsigned delete comment was added by user Shrikanthv.

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 admins on his talkpage and on other talkpages. --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the reason mentioned by user Shrikanthv. Indiuser (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fundarise and Calypsomusic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fundarise has not given a single policy based rational to keep, how on earth can you say keep per that? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't even need to move on to the notability guidelines for books; this doesn't even pass WP:GNG, as it's essentially an article grasping for straws with a small amount of OR to feign notability. A string of articles by books written by the same author have been created recently, all of them on non-notable books. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Question: what do you mean by "recently"? (Because I saw the same puzzling comment on another AfD discussion.) This article has been around since 12 November 2005‎. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : With these many results, this book itself seems to be notable than most of other books. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what results prove any notability at all? I have seen none presented here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book has been referred by number of writers, scholars, like Maria A. David, Gerald James Larson. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter for notability. Really. The criteria are laid out in WP:NBOOK. "Mentioned by a number of writers" isn't in there, for the very good reason that we can't turn mentions into an encyclopedia article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Darkness Shines. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to WP:BKCRIT The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. I think it should be kept, giving two reliable references here. The Indo-Aryan Controversy,Hindu Nationalism, Cultural Spaces, and Bodily Practices in India, Jyoti (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jyoti. The first link mentions Saffron exactly once in the forward. The second link doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic of the book. Could you give me sketch of how you concluded that Saffron was the subject of two works you cited? Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, User:Lesser Cartographies. I am incorrect, I cannot claim that it is "the subject of" the two works. Apology. Jyoti (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please also read the article history - as many references were deleted by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) from the article during the deletion discussion. This includes

-deletion of review by university professor R.N. Rao

(Some edit-warring here)

-removed the fact that professor Edwin Bryant writes that the publication is one of Elst's notable works

-deleted a review from the French author Christian Bouchet

(Darkness Shines explained the revert as "Remove WP:SPS per WP:BLP", but it is neither SPS nor does BLP apply!

-deleted citations of the book in important encyclopedias like in "World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia" by Cyprian Blamires and ‎Paul Jackson and in "Racism: A Selected Bibliography" by Albert J. Wheeler, in history professor Arnold P. Kaminsky book "India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic", and other books like in Tom Brass book "Latin American Peasants", and deletes citations in papers or scholarly books , and more

The reverts were here here here here here here here

Note: The review by R.N. Rao published by CJS Wallia (Ph.D. Stanford University, teaches at Berkeley University). says the book "is the best-researched, and most thorough analysis of the RSS and its affiliates, and of the "notion of Hindu 'fascism'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For the book Elst also interviewed many prominent Indian politicians. It contains parts of his Ph.D. thesis at a major univerity.

Comment: Two more important news articles that mention this book:

- The deputy Prime Minister, whose political career got its first big boost on the Ram temple plank and who was a symbol of Hindutva for decades, is using Ayodhya for the makeover. The catalyst is an appeal issued yesterday by the Dalai Lama to resolve the Ayodhya row through “mutual trust, mutual faith and mutual respect”. A statement by Advani today said he endorsed the Dalai Lama’s sentiments and added that not only was the spiritual leader “our revered guest but also a living symbol of religious harmony and tolerance”.
- His statement — despatched by the home ministry — was accompanied by an extract on his Rath yatra of 1990 from a book titled The Saffron Swastika by Belgian priest and professed Sangh sympathiser Koenraad Elst. The passage argued that the yatra did not spill blood on its course. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040110/asp/nation/story_2771836.asp

- Gupta even read an excerpt from the Belgian pro-Sangh pamphleeter Koenraad Elst's Saffron Swastika. ``During the Ayodhya campaign, its leader LK Advani was never caught in the act of making a single anti-Muslim remark, Elst had written. In fact, Advani, calling Elst a ``great historian, had also cited this book to prove his innocence during the early part of his cross-examination at the commission. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52399.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in summary this book has multiple reviews (R.N. Rao, Christian Bouchet, TM Menon, and maybe more) (note that Darkness Shines has removed references from the article, so they might not show up), it is quoted in several newspaper articles (Outlook India, Telegraph, Times of India), it contains parts of his Ph.D. thesis, the book is quoted by very prominent politicans like the home minister and deputy prime minister L.K. Advani, professor Edwin Bryant writes it is one of his notable works, it is a major source (in entries on India) in "World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia" by Cyprian Blamires and ‎Paul Jackson and in "Racism: A Selected Bibliography" by Albert J. Wheeler, it is cited in history professor Arnold P. Kaminsky encyclopedia "India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic", in Tom Brass book "Latin American Peasants" and many other books/papers, it is quoted in official political statements (in statements made after an appeal by the Dalai Lama, was used to prove the home minister L.K. Advani's innocence during a cross-examination at the commission,...) , etc. This book meets clearly notability criteria.--Calypsomusic (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Outlook India quotes Elst quite extensively. It can be found online in several places by googling "outlook india elst saffron swastika advani"

And the review by Rao was orignally published (among other places?) at the India Star Book review journal (edited by C. Wallia of the University of Berkeley). http://web.archive.org/web/20060528235634/http://www.indiastar.com/rameshrao.html --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another book review by TM Menon : http://web.archive.org/web/20060520001544/http://www.asianetglobal.com:8080/asianet/2004/news/detailedstory.jsp?catId=10&newsId=2 --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:21, 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 keep. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Saffron Swastika, really. That the links by Redtiger provide "passing mentions" is perhaps true, strictly speaking, but if a book is mentioned as worth further reading by a number of reliable sources (not just one or two) we can assume it has notability and reliability in its field. Let me add that the creator of this and other articles is their own worst enemy, and given their rather astonishing inability to follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV, they should be sending flowers and chocolates to Redtigerxyz pronto. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies criterion 1. Not only it is referred to as an important book on the subject [43], [44], but is also used as reference in many books. [45] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it fails on 1, neither of those sources give any coverage, just a single mention. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And neither of those sources actually say that this is an important book on the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redriect to the author as unreferenced. Neither the article nor the links above contain anything that looks like in depth coverage to me. Name dropping is not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:20, 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: [46]

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 for failing to meet WP:BKCRIT. Iniciativass (talk) 18:02, 3 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. 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.

The famous author Kushwant Singh also commented on it.^[7] 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 book was reviewed by professor Ramesh Rao. ^[8]

Indologist Gerald James Larson called the book a good treatment of the Neo Hindu interpretation of the evidence. ^[9]

The 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.

Ayub Khan says that Koenraad Elst is the most prominent advocate of Sangh Parivar in the West. He further says: "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."

In August 1990, L. K. Advani released Koenraad Elst's book about the Ayodhya conflict at a public function presided over by Girilal Jain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

K. D. Sethna, also known as Amal Kiran, he praised Elst's book on Babri Masjid as "absolutely the last word".^[10]

review
Outlook India Elst on Ayodhya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 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

^ ^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
^ 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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BKCRIT Shrikanthv (talk) 10:42, 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 admins on his talkpage and on other talkpages. --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Prof. Edwin Bryant notes that the third Ayodhya book is one of Elsts notable works. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brief look reveals that this article is the same as the other articles created on books by the same author in the past month or so. All of them contain a smattering of OR mixed with lots of citations from the authors own works to feign notability of a large amount of his books, not a single one of them notable for having made lasting impacts within the fields of Indian politics and religion. This, like the others, doesn't even pass WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Question Again, what do you mean by "the other articles created on books by the same author in the past month or so"? This article has been around since 19 March 2006‎, and it appears the same is true of the other articles (around since 2005 or so). You're leaving comments on all the deletion discussions claiming that the articles are recent, which is puzzling. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep : Notable book for the Ayodhya and babri masjid issues. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what results prove any notability at all? I have seen none presented here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about those 4,000 - 5,000 results of google books. I know, that many of them would be reprint, but still, 100s -1000s. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per users above. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please make sure to also read the article history, as the person who nominated this article for deletion has also removed references and sources from the 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

-removed the fact that professor Edwin Bryant notes in an "Oxford University Press" publication that it is one of Elst's notable works

-deleted the fact that the famous author Kushwant Singh also commented on the book

-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 mentions of reviews of his work by Paul Teunissen , R.N. Rao, and of citations in papers

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

- and more

It is very frustating and discouraging trying to expand these articles under deletion nomination when all my edits are removed for invalid reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya_and_After:_Issues_Before_Hindu_Society&curid=4443823&diff=602751962&oldid=602749582 here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayodhya_and_After:_Issues_Before_Hindu_Society&curid=4443823&diff=602752039&oldid=602751962 here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

^ 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.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Dobriyal[edit]

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

Non-notable fiction character, This article is about fiction character of Viraj Dobriyal, played by Karanvir Bohra from the show Dil Se Di Dua... Saubhagyavati Bhava?. In this article has two sources, [47], [48], but sources fails to claim Notability and also in Verifiability ChanderFor You 10:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Babita arora 06:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- This article is about a fictional character neither that this article is promoting anti social elements. First of all how can you say its a non notable character. Tell one thing just seriously is the character Sam Fisher of games Splinter Cell is highly famous in India? Oh so if Viraj's character is non notable so it would be deleted. This is a problem where representing characters is considered vandalism. USA tv soap characters despite not famous worldwide but still articles are created. To all over there just type "Viraj Dobriyal" in search box of Google it will givr you a list of his videos, music and his pics. Actor Karanvir Bohra played this role. Don't know how Indians do not represent their characters despite its a shame RajanSinghSidhu (talk) 8:29 am, Today (UTC−5)

if you wish your !vote to be given weight, you will need to base it on Wikipedia policies. I suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:42 to understand what types of rationale will be considered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable character from a barely notable series. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minion War[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence that this "crossover event" has any notability, no sources beyond the publisher and fora/blogs and the like. The individual games already have their article (Rifts and Heroes Unlimited), the fact that the publisher makes a connection between them is hardly a reason to create yet another article here, if it doesn't get significant attention in independent sources. Fram (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vote by creator, dispute the objection. This is not merely an 'event' or a 'connection' as it is being minimized to, it is the official name for a sub-series of books Palladium is producing that is larger than several of their games we have articles for. Ranze (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official name for a sub-series of books? It isn't even mentioned in the title of e.g. this one, where it also isn't a category (at the left side). It is the setting, the background for some books, but nothing more apparently. Fram (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:N is pretty clear cut. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reviews count - but only in independent sources. In particular something like the Minion War is going to have to work round the point that notability is not inherited, and that Rifts was definitely notable in the 90s but is really obscure these days. I've got nothing on my searches. As for the number of books being larger than several of Palladium's games, it is also much more for die-hard fans rather than something people might find - see also wp:OSE Neonchameleon (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability & verifiability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, as per WP:GNG. If coverage is found and refs add to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete all Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio broadcast stations of Australia - historical summary[edit]

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

This series of articles is mostly a massive collection of minutiae, technical data without actual (prose) content, violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of the historical radio stations of Australia may of course be a viable article subject, but this overly detailed, subdivided, massive group of lists is serious overkill. Fram (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Queensland - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of New South Wales - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Victoria - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Australian Capital Territory - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of South Australia - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Western Australia - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Tasmania - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Northern Territory - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Australia External Territories - historical summary
Radio broadcast networks of Australia - historical summary
Radio broadcast stations (FM radio) of New South Wales - historical summary

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though improvement is required. OccultZone (Talk) 13:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of improvement? For e.g. the stations of Queensland, we have List of radio station callsigns in Queensland (including both active and defunct stations) for the general overview, and individual articles like 4AM (AM) for the individual, more detailed information, inclduing e.g. former frequencies, power, callsign, etcetera. Why do we need lists that again have all the stations (as in the general list), but with that much detailed technical information (which can, if necessary, be included in the individual articles)? Fram (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the primary (sole?) author of this series of articles, consuming most of my spare time over the last few months. The intention is for the series of articles to provide a reliable, fully referenced, one stop shop for the all the technical details of every radio station which has ever operated in Australia. Most reference works on Australian radio have significant technical inaccuracies. This article seeks to set a new standard for accuracy. Yes, there is much minutiae, but this is the very material which is sought out by those with an interest in radio history. Perhaps the historical articles could be broken up station by station and placed in the wikipedia article for that individual station. But from what I can see most such present articles have little interest in displaying anything more than a brief historical overview. Most of the current audience of a station is not interested in information about ownership of the station from half a decade ago or its slogans used under long forgotten formats. I have started including some prose, but at this stage of development my focus is upon locating and extracting the chronological detail for inclusion in the article. I note that this series of articles already seems to have attracted favourable notice. The National Library of Australia generally places it at the top of the list of related websites whenever a search is made on their website for radio material. This series of articles has the potential to become the definitive reference work on the topic, surely this is consistent with Wikipedia's objectives? Samuel.dellit (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that that "favourable notice" required any human intervention and is not simply Wikipedia's position as the number one result for most Google searches? Fram (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I admire the creator's commitment to digging out more accurate information about the histories of Australian radio stations, what he's missing is that this isn't the format in which the information should be presented. We don't want massive lists of minutiae of this type, which compile all of the stations' technical histories into a single list — rather, each station's technical history should be detailed and referenced in the station's own article. Nobody is ever going to want or need the information to be presented as massive omnibus articles that compile the entire technical histories of every radio station in an entire Australian state or territory into one "overview" list. These lists should be deleted, with the data transferred into the more appropriate presentation — i.e. each station's own data given only in that station's own independent article — although I'd suggest moving them into the creator's sandbox space so he doesn't lose all the work he's already put in. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK guys, I get the picture, you do not want this material. What is fascinating to me is probably only of interest to a few hundred Australian radio history officiandos. I have copied all the articles as they are for my future use and will make no further edits in Wikipedia to these articles. Please delete the articles as soon as possible. I will continue my research and find another format and forum to present it. I am committed to the manageable concept of a small number of state-based and category-based articles (perhaps 50 or so). The thought of having to create or edit 5000+ individual Wikipedia station articles (all subject to this level of scrutiny) does not excite me. Keep up the good work guys, in general I like what you do. Samuel.dellit (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day guys, I am not sure of the procedures here but the articles are still up on Wikipedia. I will delete the articles myself over the next day or two. Samuel.dellit (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The process is that an AFD discussion stays open for seven days — so we're only just today reaching the point in time when anything's allowed to happen at all. And even then, it might still be another couple of days before somebody actually gets around to closing it, because there are over 100 deletion discussions to deal with at any given time and not always enough people to actually handle the workload. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An editors hard work at creating them isn't a reason to keep them, The articles appeal to those in Australia but that's it, Anyway all non notable so thus I say Delete. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See no reason they should be deleted. LordFixit (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, the articles do need to be improved and articles created for each station. LordFixit (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason these pages need to exist. --Heyitsstevo (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "It doesn't need to exist" is an argument to avoid. Why does it not need to exist? What policy-based argument supports your position? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever the result of this discussion, this information could work well as a Wikibook - essentially a reference work. However, I don't think it's appropriate for a Wikipedia article: it's mostly a collection of data, so I !vote delete. --Slashme (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lawrie[edit]

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

No indication of external coverage. No references supplied to substantiate any facts asserted in the article. Does not presently meet WP:BLP requirements that all BLP articles must include references. Sole claim to meeting WP:MUSIC notability criteria is placement at spot 39 on the 2013 UK music charts - which my best efforts have failed to confirm as true thus far. Article appears to have been created by an affiliate/representative of the record label the artist in question is signed to. Searches attempted to verify chart placement included "2013 UK singles chart" and "2013 UK singles chart ryan lawrie". - Vianello (Talk) 03:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the chart that he peaked on turns out to have been not an official UK singles chart, but the iTunes UK singles chart, a deprecated chart according to WP:BADCHARTS. Independent coverage seems to be limited to local press articles. Best of luck to him, and he may well turn out notable in time, but he's not there yet. Ruby Murray 14:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for looking into that. It's good to know it wasn't an outright fabrication at least. I feel a bit silly for missing that. - Vianello (Talk) 22:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some new references for some press by local press, television and radio. I hope that you would reconsider the deletion of this page as I now believe it meets the following criteria for Notability(Music) section 1 Ross McFadyen (talk) 23:32, 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, ‑Scottywong | talk _ 18:26, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 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 05:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masha (singer)[edit]

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

Appears to be on the very borderline of notability, but I will lean to a weak delete. I am nominating this as it has been tagged for notability for a year, time to decide the issue. Safiel (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it does not even come close to notability. She does not seem to have created a non-demo album (which I would assume is not counted), seems to have have been shown, not even discussed on one non trivial source. It could be argued that she does not even have a cult following since 2 million views total on a Youtube account is not very high anymore. Gloern — Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 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, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 18:38, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the Galo magazine is considered reliable then she was reported on at the end of December 2013 (only a few months ago). She appears to be generating more interest. User talk:BenoitHoog 18:27 06 April 2014 (GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.217.204 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     I don't want to seem petty, but increasing interest is not a part of the notability for music artists.  See both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary 
     and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29 Gloern (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve - At the moment she seems barely notable and the articles not great but since she was reported in Galo magazine, I have to say keep and improve -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:31, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THEATRON (software)[edit]

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

None of the sources for the article appear to meet our requirement that they be "Independent of the Subject". Indeed, because this was an academic project that seems to have only been written up in papers about this project, and in marketing documents supporting it, it's hard to see how any independent documentation can be found. A predecessor page about this project, titled Theatron_(3D_visualisation_project) was twice deleted in 2011. The creator of and main contributor to the article was a single-purpose account that has not been active since 2011. RomanSpa (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 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) 20:52, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The project is dead. scope_creep talk 15:33 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin McLeod (ice hockey player)[edit]

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

Subject of article is not notable and does not pass minimal standards for ice hockey project. See WP:NHOCKEY. Alaney2k (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He played in the junior Western Hockey League (which is not the WCHL) which does not satisfy criteria #1, #2, or #3 of WP:NHOCKEY per Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:HOCKEY, no evidence that he passes the GNG. Played several years of junior and college hockey without distinction. Ravenswing 10:29, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barack-etology[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I see no long-term notability in documenting U.S. President Obama's picks and predictions for the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. And even with the few sources currently on the page, "Barack-etology" seems like a neologism. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism (at best). Carrite (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is right above List of baseball games in which he threw out the first pitch. Now if he had won Warren Buffett's billion dollar prize for getting every pick right ... Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bracketology. I considered nominating this as well, but it turns out the term has been in use by the media for some time now. I agree that it's not worthy of an article on its own, but it's become an interesting note in the whole "filling in brackets" thing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bracketology - I agree with Thargor Orlando. The page on its own is not worthy. User talk:BenoitHoog 18:34 06 April 2014 (GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.217.204 (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/do not Merge this information is not significant enough for Wikipedia and does not belong on the bracketology page either, as that would be giving it undue weight. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just a paragraph, then redirect into its own section in Bracketology. We don't need Obama's yearly picks being merged, but a subsection describing the overview of what it is would be warranted. It's gained notoriety as a fun annual even that Obama loves participating in, but it doesn't require a devoted article entirely to it. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate collection of information. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely do not merge with bracketology. Bracketology is the prediction of which teams will make the tournament. Obama's prediction is who will win the games. It seems to me that the cultural phenomenon of filling out brackets should have an article (if it doesn't already), which could mention Obama'a picks, but that theoretical article is definitely not the same thing as what is covered at bracketology. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So that article does exist at March Madness pools (although it should be broadened to include non-money pools). If there is anything worth merging, it should go there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly trivial. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would this even be an article if it was someone other than Barack Obama? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial crap. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Faddish coverage for a little while doesn't make something notable. if merged, then only at ThaddeusB corrects the merge target; WP does not have to do anything stupid in response to the fact that journalists making up silly names for things sometimes do so on a factually faulty basis. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japan national football team results (1950–1959)[edit]

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

~~I don't see how these matches are notable, fails WP:GNG..~~ JMHamo (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Nomination I think all these pages need renaming to keep consistency with others, opening a discussion on WT:FOOTY JMHamo (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I UNDERSTAND YOUR OPINION, however, these matches were officially recorded by FIFA AND Japan Football Association,I can show you the material website, so you can know that. website:[49] User:Younis7435

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

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

The result was keep --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dugave[edit]

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

No sources and no evidence of notability. A quick Google search didn't turn up any results. So far the article has only served to attract vandalism. G S Palmer (talk) 00:17, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable stub. Lfstevens (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is also listed in April 6. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a place where 10k people live[50] is notable in and of itself as a gazetteer matter, WP:5. Nevertheless, the other concerns may be alleviated by upmerging it into its district article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its an important and officially recognized settlement and you already see the source for it. We don't delete articles because someone vandalized it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Joy. 10,000 people is fine for having a stand-alone article, so there are no administrative tools needed here. At the same time, if content contributors want to reorganize the material, that is outside the purview of AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table of years in paleontology[edit]

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

Appears to duplicate content in List of years in paleontology. I don't readily see the advantage of a "table" vs a list. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I based it on the equivalent that existed for the years in archaeology articles. I have no clue why it exists either, I just created it to follow the example of those articles. Abyssal (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant duplication: aside from some redlinks at the bottom, it's the same content only in a different order. Could redirect if people think it's a plausible search term. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete because it is the same as List of years in paleontology. It can also be recreated as a template. Many navigability boxes are already like this. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 02:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Review

[2] "The eternal return of Nazi nonsense: Savitri Devi's last writings". Savitri Devi Mukherji: Le National-Socialisme et la Tradition Indienne, with contributions by Vittorio de Cecco, Claudio Mutti and Christian Bouchet, published in the series Cahiers de la Radicalité by Avatar-éditions, Paris/Dublin 2004.

[3] 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 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”;.....

[4] Outlook Apr 8-14, 2008

[5] Camus, J. Y. (2007). The European extreme right and religious extremism. Středoevropské politické studie (CEPSR), (4), 263-279.

[6] Hindu nationalism, cultural spaces, and bodily practices in India

[7] Universal rights and cultural relativism: Hinduism and Islam deconstructed

[After_1991-8] Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991)

[9] Koenraad Elst. Who is a Hindu? Chapter Nine

[10] Koenraad Elst. Who is a Hindu? Chapter Eleven

[Goel-11] Sitam Ram Goel, How I became a Hindu. ch.9

[12] Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991) Footnote 64

[13] ttp://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/01/what-have-i-done.html

[14] ttp://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/03/no-more-khushwant-singh.html

[15] ttp://www.rameshnrao.com/history-ayodhya-after.html

[16] India's Agony Over Religion By Gerald James Larson

[17] Mother India: Monthly Review of Culture, Volume 58. page 521

[18] 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]