Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 April	9 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wilk[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Cited sources both fail WP:RS. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 8 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, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Harsh (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost no results in GB. OccultZone (Talk) 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing it at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collective Soul Canadian Tour 2014[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON to have this article on an ongoing concert. WIkipedia is not a newspaper. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only two references in the article are about things that may or may not happen. The article itself uses future tense. All promotion, this should be speedy deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NCONCERT TOUR. Gongshow talk 07:49, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tufo[edit]

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

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

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

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

Insufficient notability for this wiki, does not conceivably meet WP:AUTHOR. That it's a WP:COI mess from the start doesn't exactly help, either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northern Antarctica (₵) 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's quite possible I don't meet the stringent Author requirements, that's debatable but as far as COI goes, I removed one date (my birth year) And attempted to add one more possible film deal which was automatically removed so to say that this was a huge COI would be incorrect. I've got a catalog of over twenty books and have sold over 500k copies, electronically, audio or paperback. I'm not breaking any records there, but it is certainly noteworthy. Mark Tufo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Tufo (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 April 2014‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There appears to be enough sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. (Although more is always better.) Mark Tufo is currently blocked for sockpuppetry (so he can't edit this page anymore.) He also satisfies #4 of WP:AUTHOR, due to the 500,000 books he's sold. Ging287 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC) It appears that Mark Tufo has been canvassing votes. I rescind my edit and replace it with remove instead, per OP's argument. (Still new to AfD processes.) Ging287 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "There appears to be enough sources", but you don't tell us what or where those sources are. Simply saying "there are sources" is not enough. Sources have to be verifiable, and we can't verify them if you don't tell us where they are. You also say that he has sold 500,000 books. That is an astonishingly high number, and I would expect any author who has sold that many books to get considerable coverage, but I have searched, and found no source anywhere that says anything remotely like that, except the author's own claim above. Do you have a reliable source for that figure? Also, you say "500,000 books", but what Mark Tufo says is "500k copies, electronically, audio or paperback". Does "copies" mean "copies of books"? An author I personally know has a huge number of downloads of his work, but most are sample chapters, tasters, free samples, loss leaders sold for a few pennies, etc, with the number of actual books he has sold being a tiny fraction of the total download figure. Without clearer information it is not safe to make assumptions as to what "copies, electronically, audio or paperback" means. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its hard for an Indy author to prove their notability (to WP's satisfaction) because they don't get the kind of coverage or support from their publishers that a mainstream author gets. But that doesn't mean one can't be notable. I think Tufo is notable on the basis of the sheer number of reviews his books have received and the activity on his facebook page. Is he a Big Deal? Not exactly. But that doesn't mean he is not notable.--*Kat* (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia's notability criteria are based mainly on getting substantial coverage in independent sources, so saying that people in a particular category find it hard to get coverage amounts to saying that people in that category are unlikely to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. You are free to try to get the notability guidelines changed if you like, but this discussion will be assessed on the basis of the present version of those guidelines, and your first sentence is an argument that he does not satisfy those guidelines. You then go on to refer to "the sheer number of reviews his books have received", but you don't give us any indication where any of those reviews is, nor do you indicate what sort of "sheer number" is involved. Can you cite some specific examples? Also, "sheer numbers" is not enough unless they are in reliable independent sources: for example, reader-submitted "reviews" on Amazon are of no value. Finally, "the activity on his facebook page" is of no value whatever in establishing notability, as Facebook is not a reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only one of the sources in the article may possibly be independent, and that one is of dubious reliability. The first couple of pages of Google hits are full of such things as Facebook, blogspot, Goodreads, Twitter, Wikipedia, sites selling his work, sites existing to promote authors' work (e.g. www.independentauthornetwork.com), and so on: a striking lack of anything that could be regarded as an independent reliable source. As I have indicated above, the attempts by other editors to suggest that he is notable are either unsubstantiated, out of line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or both. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tufo has requested on his Facebook page that fans contest the deletion of the article (which he himself requested someone create for him, in the same venue). Whilst AFD is not a vote (and I've put the usual notavote template at the top of this page to emphasise that) note that this AFD may see a number of SPA votes due to such off-wiki canvassing. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no serious reviews or media attention, nothing but blogs, bookseller sites &c.TheLongTone (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the man might not be on the New York Times Best Seller list he has written some very popular books. Being self published he doesn't have the reach that many other authors have, which is why there aren't as many independent sources mentioning him (note: I commented out the unsourced accolades in the article at one point), but that doesn't mean his entry doesn't belong here. Disclaimer: I do follow him on Facebook and saw he was having trouble with his entry so I offered publicly to try and clean it up and make it closer to the standards here. I state this in interest of full discloser. I have had an account here far longer than I've even known of his existence so there is no sock-puppetry or back channel dealings involving me. FyreFiend (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FyreFiend has made only one edit on any other topic since January 2012. 217.158.67.179 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

As I said above to another editor, you are free to propose changes to the notability guidelines, but as they stand at present, what you say is not a reason for keeping: you say "there aren't as many independent sources mentioning him", which is the whole point. Thank you for being open about how you come to be here. However, the fact that your account has existed for a long time does not alter the fact that you are here as a result of canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small point of order: I am involved with trying to improve the article because of his Facebook post but not on Wikipedia in general because of it. I'm not trying to break any rules. I'm being upfront as to how I found out about the article, I did not create my account to try to sway the consensus, nor would I create secondary accounts. I'm just a member who is interested in his writing who thought I might be able to help improve the article. Seeing as it seems that this article is doomed to be deleted I retract my "keep" FyreFiend (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Getting 974 votes in a Goodreads contest is not one of the WP:BIO criteria. No significant third-party RS coverage whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric beast[edit]

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

Previously used WP:PROD but the OP removed in 2009 and I just noticed R3ap3R (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. I don't know about this topic or ufology in general but i rather think i read somewhere about these lurking, in some sci-fiction i read, and the topic seems interesting, even if it is only a fictional conceit. Per several commenters in the first AFD the topic seems significant but should be edited. There was concern expressed that the article reflected synthesis of pop stuff, and that mention of Sagan and others was name-dropping when they didn't use the exact term, but there were some answers given to part of that concern, and the article was edited some. --do ncr am 00:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic is not notable enough for its own article, "atmospheric beast" is not a phrase used by independent RS sources. (Note that a phrase Carl Sagan once offhandedly uttered on a TV show does not constitute a scientific hypothesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not be keeping articles on the basis of rumor that there may be something mentioned about this in a science fiction book somewhere. jps (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article can't make up its mind if this is hypothetical or fictional; no evidence it's notable as either. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Guy, if this was purely about a fictional or legendary creature (like Orcs or a Minotaur), I think there would be justification to keep it as there are plenty of articles on fictional or mythological creatures. But trying to rationalize that these beasties are real makes some of the claims ridiculous (they are lighter than air but are carnivorous? so, an air-based digestive system?) and that warrants a delete. I could see a recreation if it was clear these are fictional animals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a fun thing for Carl Sagan to shoot the breeze about - but it looks like it was just a cutesy 'what if' to be interesting. I like cutesy 'what ifs' - but it's not a notable subject. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable theme, primarily in science fiction. However nix undue emphasis on the idea that this is real.--Pharos (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more research on this, and have surprisingly found Sagan actually co-wrote a scientific article on this in 1976. I also have found some more examples of scientifuc speculation from others, and of SF use.--Pharos (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is the source of the term "atmospheric beast", is it from Ufology? Other, possibly better options, might be "living balloon" or "floater" or "gasbag" or "Jovian". --Pharos (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no use of "atmospheric beast" by reliable sources. Internet pages written by fringe proponents don't count. And the Sagan paper is specific to Jupiter, so it belongs at Jupiter#Possibility_of_life, not in an article about generalized mythical atmosphere-dwelling beasts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The hypothesis is real, it may seem like a joke but it did exist. It was taken seriously by only a handful of fringe proponents so reliable sources will be almost non-existent for the topic. The only reliable source I know that discusses it briefly is by the skeptic Ronald Story who discusses the hypothesis on one page of his book [1], apparently it was known as the "space animal" hypothesis. The topic is not notable enough to have an entire article to itself and as there are no reliable sources it should be deleted. I have no idea where atmospheric beast came from or how this article lasted so long. BTW the stuff from Patrick Moore or those other writers should be removed, that is original research. The term "atmospheric beast" is not used in their papers. This is very much a fringe UFO idea. Goblin Face (talk) 22:38, 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 procedural close in favour of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric beast (3rd nomination) which is linked from the article. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric beast[edit]

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

Previous PROD removed by original editor on 18 August 2009, just now noticed it. This article could be speculated to be a CSD in fact, due to a lack of notability. R3ap3R (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: duplicate AfD due to API issue (I was using old tools, haven't logged on in a few years my apologies.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Zirin[edit]

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

Primarily an author of a non-notable blog, and of non-notable books, though he sometimes has had bylines in notable media such as the Nation, this blogger fails to attract sufficient coverage by RSs of him, himself, to satisfy GNG. The refs in the article are primarily refs to his own blog, as well as refs to his "author descriptions" and his own writings. Epeefleche (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's not just a blogger with an occasional by-line; he's the sports editor at the Nation with his own radio show on Sirius XM. Other media organizations frequently turn to him for comment (see this list of his appearances on Democracy Now or this list of media appearance on his bio at the Zinn Education Project). Just between book reviews[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and interviews[10][11][12], I think we have plenty of coverage by RSs of him himself. -- Irn (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi zirn. The book reviews are not substantial RS coverage of Zirin -- they barely touch on him, and focus instead on the books.

And the interviews are not RS coverage of Zirin--they consist mostly of his own words, and as such that's a primary source, like his own bio of himself on his blog, and do not count towards notability. A "public appearance" -- not covered in depth by RSs -- does not suffice.

What we are missing is substantial RS coverage of the man himself.Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:GNG only specifies that the coverage address him "directly and in detail" without being a mere "passing mention", and in the above sources, we have that. While GNG specifies that he "need not be the main topic of the source material", we have that, too, with his Utne award[13], his Sports Journalism award[14], his keynote speech at the Baseball Reliquary[15], articles about his public appearances[16][17][18][19], and a 2001 Washington Post article about his political activism[20]. -- Irn (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we are missing is substantial RS coverage of the man himself. A non-notable award does not suffice. A non-RS does not suffice. A speech -- covered only by the non-RS, for whom he spoke -- does not suffice. A WSJ article (this one doesn't have a WSJ url) would be helpful, of course, but not in itself sufficient. BTW - do you have a COI here? Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Irn (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:AUTHOR makes it quite clear that, for authors and other creative professionals, in-depth reviews of their work in reliable sources do help to establish notability, whether or not they give substantial information about the author. The sources found by User:Irn are of varying quality, but this one from The New Republic is very much the kind of review needed for notability, and three or four of the others, while less substantial, are also from reliable sources and are detailed enough to help to some extent towards notability (and the review from Sports Illustrated would probably help almost as much as that from The New Republic if we had the original rather than the version reprinted by the subject's employer). But even discounting the Sports Illustrated review, I think there is just about enough to establish notability, even if the article needs a thorough rewrite to reduce its reliance on primary sources to an acceptable level. PWilkinson (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career accomplishment to merit encyclopedic biography. Sourcing out journalists is notoriously hard, since competitors don't write about them and if their own publications write about them it does not count to GNG. in he absence of a Special Notability Guideline for journalists and columnists, a little common sense is called for. Zirin is a nationally recognized figure, probably the best-known American "political" sportswriter. Keep under the pillar and policy of IAR. Carrite (talk) 23:06, 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 speedy delete. User requested G7 delete after content userified. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Planet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone move this to my userspace? Freefalling660 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. This AfD should be closed as "Userfy". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Freefalling660: I've moved the page to your userspace, at User:Freefalling660/Cool_Planet. Consider tagging the existing page Cool Planet page with {{db-U1}}. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Sofia Reboleira[edit]

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

Does not seem to hold against WP:NACADEMICS. Seems like a promising post-doc, but no noteworthy scientific honours, or faculty positions. A few newly described species, but perhaps that is not enough for an article. Destruidor de mínimos (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's assessment is accurate. Scholarly citations are tiny. Far too early (but might get there later). Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I believe taxonomy is a low citation field, but still, we need evidence of passing WP:PROF. An h-index of 5 with max citations 41 (in Google scholar) isn't that evidence, and we don't have anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF, and no other indication of notability. -- 101.117.56.61 (talk) 22:52, 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 Merge to Newport, Pembrokeshire. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parrog[edit]

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

Parrog is the name given to the harbour area of Newport, Pembrokeshire on which there is historical and current information, including references to Parrog. A separate article on Parrog is unlikely to contain enough information to ever be more than a stub. I have checked to make sure that any information (apart from the image, which is only a distant view) in the Parrog article is in the Newport article. I can provide my own image(s) of Parrog which, if necessary, can have its own section in the Newport article. Tony Holkham (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newport, Pembrokeshire. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged all this article into Newport, Pembrokeshire Tony Holkham (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newport, Pembrokeshire. It may have been a better solution to be bold and merge this very sketchy stub in the first place. Sionk (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to be bold, but am a little unsure of procedures relating to AfD versus Merge. Must spend more time on the help pages!! Tony Holkham (talk) 13:43, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualization (computing)[edit]

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

Duplicate article of Virtualization Bhny (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - as above, subject is already covered by the Virtualization article, which is more complete.Dialectric (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cover any important topic. Unatnas1986 (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to virtualization - to preserve the editor's work. The virtualization article leaves out virtual reality, and some history. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:29, 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 as per WP:SK#1. No outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) Harsh (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garakupi High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHSCHOOL. Also created by a sockpuppet of blocked user Samima khatun (talk · contribs) and primarily edited by another sockpuppet of the same user. Sjö (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added a reference found using Google Search. The article can be improved but meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. AllyD (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exists. That's enough for a secondary school per long-established precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent as noted at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Northern Antarctica (T • ₵) 14:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that secondary schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per all of the above keeps. No-brainer. Just close this. It's a waste of editor time to keep it open.Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 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 speedily deleted by Enigmaman with the deletion summary "abusive sock creation, not notable". (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jhuruli Junior Basic School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Also created by what appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked user Samima khatun (talk · contribs). Sjö (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Alamuddin[edit]

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

not notable. all the reliable sources about her (Time, ABC, International Business Times) it's all about her being George Clooney's girlfriend. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amal Alamuddin is an accomplished lawyer in her own right. She may have come on the radar via George Clooney, but she is notable because of the following facts: (a) Her body of work in the Human rights law arena (b) Her consultancy in International law with the United Nations on Syria and (c) Her legal representation of Julian Assange. All the reliable online sources list these facts.Fsmatovu (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is having "significant coverage" of her. Where is all this significant coverage you speak of? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to indicate she is notable as a lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:44, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gravastar[edit]

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

The entire "theory" is proposed and supported by non-notable physicists Mazur and Mottola (who had their wiki pages speedy removed for being non-notable) and was directly contradicted / proven wrong in 2011 by Professor Hawking. There is absolutely no scientific credibility to the theory, with no notable researchers providing any support. Several of the references were 404 or not substantially related. I might add that I specialize in this field but have no COI. 65.28.108.179 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I logged in to show my history as an experienced wikipedian (RCP with Twinkle since 2008), and to show the lack of COI R3ap3R (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I freely admit that I am not a specialist, and have no idea whether this theory has been disproved. However, 240 mentions on Google Scholar and the several citations in the article to the popular press pass the notability bar for me. Even a disproved theory may be maintained as an article if academic or popular interest in it is sufficiently wide and well-documented. I believe that is the case here. Xoloz (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether a theory proves false or not or whether it is only supported by "non-notable" (in the Wikipedia sense) is quite irrelevant to whether there should be an article on it. A quick google search already shows that there are easily enough sources to make this topic "notable". --JorisvS (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not have an article about every topic with 250 citations in GS. Come back when these are at least ten times larger. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. It easily meets the general notability guidelines (WP:Notability). 250 or 2500 does not make a difference. --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massively notable concept, this should not be here at all. I also see book sources here. That the theory is discredited is entirely irrelevant when dealing with notability. I am absolutely baffled by Xxanthippe comment: 250 sources are a huge amount for notability, actually probably more than 90% of our topics, given that just two independent academic sources would be enough to meet WP:GNG. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 41 hits for articles (by a variety of authors) on Inspire that have "Gravastar" in the title, means that the topic meets the WP:GNG easily. Whether the idea has been debunked or not is not relevant. (In fact, Hawking think that the idea was relevant enough to debunk only adds to its notability.)T R 14:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What exactly has been disproved? There is a statement in the article that some prediction about gravastars has been disproved, but without any citation to back it up. @R3ap3R has not provided any citations either, and all the sources I could find take gravastars seriously. Not that it would make any difference because the article easily passes GNG. Some of the 404's that he mentioned were easily fixed using the Wayback Machine. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Even simply being wrong wouldn't make it non notable, plenty of things that are wrong are actually extremely notable; the fact that it was published in lots of places and the fact that Hawking looked at it makes it notable. Also, the research may well yet lead to further work.GliderMaven (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Khans[edit]

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

No need for this extra article when three individual articles of actors existed already. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a standalone article. Harsh (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4 Deleted prior via WP:Articles_for_deletion/Khan_trio Harsh (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These Khan's are individually notable. But, no evidence of notability as a group. Salih (talk) 08:18, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Jackson[edit]

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

Not notable. Accepting (questionably) that she has two notable roles would establish the presumption of notability. However, there is insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed biography. Instead, we a have a list of credits, structured to look like a biography. SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability within the roles listed; all roles except for the main two are guest roles anybody could do; nothing since 2010. Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run of the mill child actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:59, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Zaidi[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed biography. The first two sources give us his name, University of Durham and the invention. As far as independent reliable sources, that one sentence is all we know. It might belong in several places on Wikipedia, but it is not a biography. The third source, a primary source bio (and unarchived deadlink) is not useful for notability. SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google scholar h-index of somewhere around 11 fails WP:Prof#C1 in this field. Claim to have developed organic room temperature magnet is just by one person in a large research group. Durham link is dead. Google hits are social media sites and mirrors of Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or redirect to plastic magnet per WP:BIO1E. His postdoctoral(?) supervisor on the plastic magnet research, A. P. Monkman, looks clearly notable by our WP:PROF standards, but I don't see the evidence of the same for Zaidi. Subject seems to have disappeared from the scholarly record after doing this research, so notability is unlikely to change. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. -- 101.117.56.61 (talk) 22:55, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Helton Jr[edit]

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

Despite serving with Lt Helton, I don't believe he is notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. And although his death was tragic this also falls under the realm of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but at least there are other sites such as this for his memorial. Regards, — dain omite 16:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — dain omite 16:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination fails GNG guidelines. Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. Another dead serviceman. Sadly not unusual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burns & Trauma[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Randykitty. Web search isn't turning up anything about the journal besides its own website. -Iago Qnsi 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional spam. The only reference us to the subscription website page, External links are in Chinese, with no English Translation. NB: this is not the only promotional article, with unverifiable Chinese language references by this editor. He has also recreated a BLP one, which was deleted under db-g11 criteria. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are Burns & Trauma a crime-solving duo? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't classify this as promotional spam. It's a journal published by the Chinese Medical Association, which apparently has about 70 titles in its stable. As to its notability - possibly in the Chinese medicine arena but a bit too arcane for Wikipedia criteria. @Lugnuts: No, I think they were in The Simpsons ;) ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 09:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 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 02:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Oberman[edit]

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

Basically an advertisement for a lawyer specializing in DUI.His most notable case seems to have been on a purely procedural issue. No significant national office--most of the positions are vice-whatever.. The ratings are of the sort "the best __ lawyers in" which are not reliable sources of notability. The awards are internal ones from the college where he is an adjunct . The article actually lists participation in a meeting as an award. DGG ( talk ) 11:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get a strong whiff of paid promotional editing here... --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication whatsoever of notability. Just another lawyer. TJRC (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another lawyer. No doubt highly competent but not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. No evidence of WP:GNG or other notability. Being named one of "ten best lawyers in America" looks like a claim of notability, so this is not a case for A7 speedy deletion, but the source is a very local journal so its credibility in naming local lawyers for its list is highly suspect. Local university teaching awards as an adjunct professor do not rise to the level of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Has one pub. with 60 cites on GS. It's a co-authored book, titled "Drunk driving defense" held by about 125 major libraries worldwide. Maybe unusual scholarship for an attorney, but just not enough for WP:PROF notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and Eric Yurken. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 15:21, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Wescoat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has been on the "WikiProject Women Artists" list of questionable articles for several months. Subject is a 'web savvy' painter who runs freshgloss.com and has written in other online sites. She has been "referenced" in two books, but I'm not convinced this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Article written by a one-purpose account, possibly the subject. Is it suitable for Wikipedia? Sionk (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice this article has already been deleted once after an AfD in June 2009, though the second book "reference" post-dates this, published in October 2009, therefore possibly not a clear speedy deletion candidate. Sionk (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no gallery shows or works in important collections.TheLongTone (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly I can't discover how she passes WP:ARTIST at this time, even with my more avant garde art interests. SarahStierch (talk) 02:31, 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 Delete. Per discussion on my talk page. I will be redirecting as an editorial decision after the close. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roscommon School[edit]

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

NN primary school. Zero sources. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles on primary schools, absent them being especially notable. I see no such evidence of special notability with this one. Epeefleche (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as per nom. Non-notable school, fails WP:NSCHOOL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Manurewa#Primary education. Ollieinc (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that is sourced, so nothing IMHO that is mergeable (even if that were agreed upon).Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge so long as sourcing is added. A quick look on Google indicates a reasonable number of reliable sources are available. The Manurewa article also needs sources. NealeFamily (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Majority of delete !votes ignored per WP:NOTAVOTE; no attempts to counter sources put forward by Rikster during the course of this discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'Angelo Harrison[edit]

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

Non-notable college-level athlete. Only claim (team record for 3-pointers) is not a notable achievement. Main sources are not third-party as they're from the college website D P 08:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable Harsh (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to offer any explanation beyond that? AfDs don't use !votes. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted above, not notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' articles inclued from ny daily news and others and if yo u say most pointers for st.john's is non notable then i really hope you are joking and stop sipping the kool aid. --Mathgenious989 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this, this, and this constitute significant coverage. Clearly notable college player. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a couple more - Here and here - from independent, reliable sources. Worth noting that Harrison is the leading candidate for the Haggerty Award, which will be named next week. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like there are sufficient sources from independent reliable sources to verify he meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having the highest record at a particular college is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no, but meeting GNG is. Rikster2 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erlendur Haraldsson[edit]

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

There's no reliable sources that discuss the paranormal work of Haraldsson. Over 80% of the article is sourced to his own paranormal fringe papers such as by the Society for Psychical Research. There appears to be no critical coverage for his paranormal claims. An internet search reveals only fringe paranormal-related websites mentioning his work. Due to the lack of reliable sources, there's no possible way this article can be neutral. It is heavily biased towards fringe ideas. Goblin Face (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of ~ 18 passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Note, one of his books was praised by famous psychologist Hans Eysenck "Well worth reading for the interest of the topic, of the man, and the puzzle it presents - Professor Hans Eysenck, University of London" Andries (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fringe book that talks about miracles being real. As for the comment about Eysenck he was a big believer in the paranormal so it's not surprising he gave the book a positive review but amazon isn't a reliable source. My original comments still stand - what critical or skeptical reliable material/sources do we have that cover Haraldsson's paranormal claims? The whole article is basically sourced to his own fringe papers. Goblin Face (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the book and it debunks some miracles and leaves the possibility open that other miracle stories are true miracles. There is a lot of criticism of Haraldsson's work but it is hard line skeptic, like the Indian Skeptic and I do not think sufficiently reputable. Andries (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Hans Eysenck about Haraldsson's book is real. See [ http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=FZzaeRsAAAAJ&cstart=320&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=FZzaeRsAAAAJ:_AkkBXT-jcoChere here.]Andries (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:I DON'T LIKE IT is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that there are not any reliable references that discuss his work - only paranormal books or websites, I just spent even more time looking and can't find any. There are none. I don't see how the article can be improved. Goblin Face (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, there are hundreds of citations to his work in Google scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If we removed all the material cited to primary sources (Haraldsson's own work) and all the unreliable references to fringe journals, would there be anything left to build a stub article from? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you think that the Indian Skeptic is not reputable enough. Andries (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the article and removed material cited to primary and fringe sources. (BTW: The reputability of Indian Skeptic has nothing to do with this discussion) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do u mean? What I meant to say is that I could turn it into a reasonable article if people agree that the Indian Skeptic is a reputable source for criticism and reviews of his writings. I personally do not think that the Indian Skeptic is reputable enough. Andries (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that this deletion debate does not ultimately turn on whether Indian Skeptic is reliable or not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to his importance in his chosen field of continuing research (we don't suppress information about scholars because we disagree with them or dislike what they work on; we present information neutrally), he is documentably notable in his own country. He is the subject of a biographical book (published in 2012) and in 2010, 11 years after his retirement, an institute was endowed at the University of Iceland named for him: [21], [22]. His research on Icelanders' beliefs regarding dreams has been built on by the Skuggsjá Dream Center. (He's also mentioned in two places in this book. I'll continue to search for newspaper and academic coverage, which I suspect will be mostly in Icelandic, but I believe his national impact merits our having an article on him and overcomes the fringe nature of some of the English-language sources on his work. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After further examination of the sources, I need to modify the above a little. It isn't an institute, but rather an endowed fund, and he facilitated its establishment (in 2007). Also he coauthored the biography. However, in addition to press mentions, at least three of his studies turn out to be widely cited in sources I can see on JSTOR, some of which are giving me material I can add. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless completely rewritten before the close of this debate. The almost entirely self-sourced article reads as a vanity biography, which does the subject a great disservice if he is genuinely notable and does Wikipedia a disservice if he isn't. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sourced? Nonsense, See my comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You wrote there are hundreds of citations in Google Scholar that mention his work. I just went through 20 pages on Google Scholar. They are mostly self-sourced i.e. his own papers in fringe psychical or spiritualist journals. There's nothing reliable there. Goblin Face (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. For example, one of the 108 citations to his book is in the British Journal of Psychology [23]. Take a look at the other 107. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

That is a paper by Richard Wiseman which doesn't even discuss Haraldsson's work in any detail whatsoever, it just uses one of his psychical papers as a reference that is all. Wiseman's paper can be found here [24], search for Haraldsson. Explain how this would be useful to the article? Goblin Face (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what a citation is and that is why many hundreds of them are required to pass WP:Prof#C1. In this case there is a pass. Anyway, what is wrong with fringe psychical or spiritualist journals? Cannot they be used as sources for fringe psychical or spiritualist matters? Is it your view that Wikipedia should contain no material on such topics? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If there is critical/skeptical material in third-party reliable sources for such paranormal claims then they can be used with the fringe papers, otherwise we will have an article that is in violation of NPOV, undue weight to fringe theories etc that only has paranormal papers cited on it. This is the problem with the Haraldsson article only his own papers are being cited and those papers are endorsing all kinds of wacky stuff. Take a look at other articles like Dean Radin or Russell Targ, this is how the article should be. There needs to be a reception section showing the mainstream view of the subject or at least some non-fringe references that discuss his paranormal claims. Goblin Face (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that requires "critical/skeptical material" for an article to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Anyway, there is here, there are dozens of mainstream sources among the subject's citations, not least British Journal of Psychology. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed. But there is a policy that requires non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (i.e. we can't source the subject's significance by counting the number of things he has published). Guy (Help!) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional user, I must say, I am quite shocked that Wikipedia should even be considering deleting this article, although I agree that it may have some faults in terms of the sourcing policy, and possibly in terms of NPOV. Erlendur Haraldsson is a very prominent person in the field, and whatever you may think of the field, he is a professor emeritus of his university. It is natural that many people - such as myself - may be interested in learning of his activities and his life, and it is natural for them to turn for information to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, goodness, and wisdom. Very likely the article needs to be improved, as do many articles. But to purge Wikipedia of all mention of this important person would not do the public a service at all. (It certainly would inhibit me from making future contributions to Wikipedia, both textual and financial.) I note that many very obscure figures, such as American college football athletes, have their own Wikipedia pages; and this is OK, because the encyclopedia is expandable without limit. I also point out that deleting this article would furnish more grist for the mill of persons who claim that studies of the sort pursued by Erlendur are subjected to vicious and oppressive academic censorship and opprobrium. Pretty solid and believable grist, actually. Thomas Goodey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.90.7 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need not be too shocked. Worse things have happened here. Does this mean that you are voting keep? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Off topic, answer to Thomas Goodey, yes his research has been attacked viciously, [removed comments that I and others wrote on blogs] Andries (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andries:, without a reference that's a violation of our policy concerning living persons. Do you have such a reference? If not, please refactor your comment. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because reliable references have been found and added. I also found the articles in the Indian Skeptic that Andries mentioned, I will add them at some point. Goblin Face (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion here reminds a bit of people dedicated to materialism and finding everything else "fringe". Fortunately there are brave scientists who endure criticism of such "mainstreamers" and widen our horizon by applying scientific methods. If Goblin Face finds references - but lots and important ones! - only in paranormal books and websites, it is not different from finding research on horse breeding in books on biology but not in books on e.g. electricity. Haraldsson´s work is not "mostly Icelandic" but very international. He was a close associate of Ian Stevenson and is the outstanding scientific expert on the amazing personality of the world famous Indian Guru Sai Baba. Haraldsson is one of the pillars of modern consciousness research and very much worth being presented in Wikipedia.Imbush (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would appreciate if someone who is knowledgeable on the topic could summarize these on the article in detail [25] regarding Haraldsson's views on Sathya Sai Baba. Also some letters here [26], Vol. 1 No. 3 July 1988. Goblin Face (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - 'Looks like the deletionist cabal hard at work as usual. If it isn't Anglo-American, if it isn't AMA/FDA approved, if it isn't blessed by certain clergy that drink the right brand of whiskey, down the memory hole it must go. Yet there are literally thousands of articles about English and American subjects that nobody ever questions; it's just UNDERSTOOD they matter 'cuz they relate to a relevant place on the globe That m.o. does not improve the quality of Wikipedia or its standing among the greater global English-speaking population. WP notability standards are quite clear, at least in several categories (e.g., music) which can be analogized here: It doesn't matter if it's a country of 1.2 billion people or a country of 320,000 people. That's one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia. In principle. Until deletionists' quotas must be met. Wir müssen etwas finden, um zu löschen, ja? Paavo273 (talk) 07:44, 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 and redirect to Ross Lynch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Feel It (Ross Lynch song)[edit]

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

The song is not notable as per the guidelines. The sources are unreliable and the link that says the song has charted is broken. Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also this related AfD... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Billion Hits.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also this related AfD... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heard It on the Radio.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ross Lynch. Not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant a standalone article for this song; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. The Bubbling Under position is not enough to tip the scales the other way; the chart info can be mentioned/listed in the singer's article/discography section. Gongshow talk 09:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Gongshow Adabow (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to appropriate album. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Austin & Ally or Ross Lynch. Non-notable song. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:16, 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. Nomination withdrawn. Also usual poor judgements by nominator. (WP:Non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brabantia[edit]

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

fails WP:RS , WP:GNG ,sources cited are self released and promotion and cannot see any notability Shrikanthv (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Shrikanthv (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and follow WP:BEFORE next time. Plenty of sources exist. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:17, 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 Withdrawn per additions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob Comics[edit]

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

No sourcing found, no content in article. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of SpongeBob SquarePants merchandise since there are few sources and ghits so the article can be expanded to cover any media related SpongeBob. JJ98 (Talk) 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additions to the article. Gongshow talk 08:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. Per addition to the article. Well thanks to Gongshow! Mediran (t • c) 09:44, 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. Clearly there is no deletion that will happen here (consensus is firmly against that). Possibility of a merge warrants discussion, but that can be done on the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy[edit]

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

This is an article about an event (the "controversy"). Here are the notability guidelines for events: [27], going straight to the "inclusion criteria". The article does not satisfy any of these criteria. Specifically: Lasting effect- no discernible lasting effects. Geographical scope - I'm sure they care about this in Africa. Or Asia. Or even North America. Depth of coverage - at best ankle deep. An old outdated story in a local newspaper. One attention seeker engaging in self promotion (non-reliable primary source), couple passing mentions. That's about it. Duration of coverage - shorter than the life expectancy of a Mayfly. It's hard to believe that anyone cares about this anymore. Looking on GoogleNews "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!" gets you exactly... zero hits. As in "nada". Diversity of sources - like I said. A couple of outdated newspaper stories which mention the event in passing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep this controversy, and especially the shirt, is discussed in a number of RS long after the event - a search of google books finds this referenced in several books that analyze esp American or western culture and it's view of boys and men. The fact that there are no google news results is irrelevant - google recently changed their archive policy and you can now only search a short time backwards. I also found several hits from google scholar. I have to wonder about how much effort the nom put into this - it clearly passes GNG. I'm on mobile so can't easily post links but I uge everyone voting here to not take mareks assertions above as gospel truth, and search google books yourself you will find this mentioned in several books.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs to support your assertions. " a search of google books finds this referenced in several books" - mmmmm.... no. A gbooks search just brings up a) Wikipedia reprints b) other books by the same company c) old articles on the subject compiled into book volumes and d) completely unrelated hits. And even all that is not much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's gbooks search, once you subtract off the word "Wikipedia": [28] (replacing the exclamation point by a comma makes no difference).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, I think you've been around the block so not really in the mood to argue how to use google search. Suffice to say that if you think an adequate search is for the exact string "Boy are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy" you're missing the point. Try breaking up the phrases and you'll get more hits, including articles in Time and at least 3 books. We may need to get books from library as google search only has snippets of some. Please stop promoting these bogus searches, the controversy and Tshirt is not always covered using this exact string, you need to have more flexible queries.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. It's exactly because I've been around the block that I know to *use* the exact string rather than broken up phrases which pick up lots of irrelevant hits. Look at the top of this page. Where it says "(Find sources: "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)". Click on the "books" link. It takes you to a gbooks search which looks for the exact string. That's what I used, I just added "-Wikipedia". The stuff about "getting books from a library" (be my guest, but do so, not just assert that if you did so, it'd be different) is just making excuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, you want this article deleted so obviously aren't looking carefully for sources, which I easily found with more flexible searches. The full string you're looking for is the title of the article, which doesn't match how RS speak about this event (eg they don't always call it a controversy, they so times leave out 'throw rocks at them', they sometimes discuss other tshirts by the same company but in the same vein, etc. you need to do more than an exact string match.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see these sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources a number of RS that cover this topic in detail are listed on the right hand side here including radio and TV coverage as well as articles in newspapers and magazines in Canada and the US. The coverage shown here goes through 2005 (a year after the campaign started) and I've found book hits from 2008 and 2012. As mentioned I'm on mobile so can't pull all the sources right now but I just don't want people voting based on the biased and misleading intro by Marek which under-estimates the coverage.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh come on. That's Glenn Sacks' website, the guy who whipped up the whole "controversy" thing in the first place to promote himself. It's a primary and unreliable source. And the links on the site are to obscure small local newspaper stories from... ten years ago. Which just proves that there is no "Lasting effect" here what so ever, or depth of coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

marek I find it very hard to assume good faith when you consistently mislead people with your comments. Would you consider Time magazine, people magazine, the San Francisco chronicle, the Washington post, and the AP to be small local newspapers? All of them covered this particular campaign and controversy in articles devoted to the subject. I don't care about Sack's website, he just happens to have a good list of articles already linked. Please stop with the misleading comments about which sources have covered this. As for lasting, the fact that this controversy is mentioned in books published many years later is sufficient evidence of lasting impact. When I get to computer later this week I will post more sources but please everyone else do your own research don't trust what Marek says as his goal is deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but when I look at the "right hand side" of that website I see: Boulder Daily Camera", the (no longer existent) Billboard Radio Monitor, the Denver Westward, City Link Magazine, all from 2005. The Time magazine (not an article, a blurb) and the rest are older from 2004. Again, this just shows that ten years ago there were some stories about this. But not since then. See Inclusion criteria "Lasting effect". There's no significant coverage here. Hell, there wasn't even significant coverage back when this happened. What books are you talking about? You keep making assertions but provide no evidence or misleading evidence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at the WikiProject Men's Issues talk page [29] & WikiProject Gender Studies talk page [30]. Cailil ^talk 11:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glenn Sacks & Todd Goldman. VM has articulated very clearly why this doesn't stand-up on its own as an article, per WP:NNEWS. However some usable and WP:Due information could be merged to the Glenn Sacks article--Cailil ^talk 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glenn Sacks & Todd Goldman I agree, the news story isn't noteworthy enough itself to have its own article per VM's reasoning, but the content itself could easily be merged to Glenn Sacks as Cailil suggests, with a redirect if somebody is interested in reading on the article itself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are dozens of RS hits at HighBeam, see here. Much of the press was in 2004, but it has definitely extended until as recently as 2012, making this article pass GNG in spades. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Google News has recently changed their algorithm, making very few hits come up for pretty much any subject, so HighBeam is a superior method of searching for references. As I've shown, it bears out that this subject definitely passes GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this is simply false. There are NOT "dozens of RS hits at HighBeam". Certainly not ones with indepth coverage, most of them either making a passing mention or articles about t-shirts in general or about the book NOT the event. And most of these are small newspapers or magazines of local interest. And some of these hits are really listing the same source over and over again. And virtually ALL of them are from 2004 and 2005 (one from 2007?). So again, there's no evidence of "Lasting Coverage". Or In Depth Coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of hits, and some of extraordinary depth that I have provided. That said, please read Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there really are not. Somewhere in the neighborhood of half a dozen, at best, all from about ten years ago. And no evidence of "extraordinary depth" has been provided at all! Where? What are you talking about? Two articles/blurbs from 2004/5? NOTTEMPORARY is not relevant here (esp. since this wasn't notable to begin with), Inclusion Criteria are. And these are not satisfied. Not even close.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, and yes, it does differ from mine. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These highbeam articles are mainly news paper artciles and are mainly the same material reprinted. Again VM's point re: depth & duration of coverage still stands. The other articles are not about the topic but tangential to it. To assert notability sources do have to be about the topic--Cailil ^talk 14:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly have read through the dozens and dozens of articles since I posted my comment thoroughly enough to know that. I did read through most of them, and you're incorrect about the coverage when you mine through the entire heap. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three examples of in depth coverage: 2004, 2005, and 2007. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 links are newspaper articles Jeremy112233. You can see where the articles are published on highbeam with the listing on left BTW. And one of the criteria here is diversity of sources. The highbeam lists illustrate the homogeneity of sources here not their diversity--Cailil ^talk 17:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are newspaper articles :) Those sources are all that is required to pass GNG. But... Google Books shows the subject coming up half a dozen or so times as well. It is also cited in these two academic sources: shown here on Google Scholar. It is also discussed here in an art magazine. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that's not "all that is required to pass GNG". Not even close. Please read my rationale for listing this article for deletion. For it to pass GNG you need show Lasting effect, Geographical scope, Depth of coverage, Duration of coverage, or at least some of these. But none of them are satisfied. Three sources from ten years ago don't cut it. And the 2007 article is NOT about the event, it's not even about the book, just mentions it in passing. So, ... two sources from ten years ago don't cut it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have your opinion, and I have mine. That is what AFD is all about. I would say that hounding every person who posts here and commenting on every post doesn't show you are more correct than others, it simply shows that you are willing to repeat yourself more than others are :) My one real concern with your argumentation is that you appear to be cherry-picking the words of others and showing them out of context. Like, say, taking my examples of three articles out of their context as being available alongside the sources on the current page or in the context of the various other sources available. That can be construed as misleading. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I could see a removal of the word "controversy" from the title and transitioning the article into an article on the book itself. The book's coverage very clearly meets GNG, and if there are concerns about an article focused on the controversy only, that could be a good fix. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huge story with international scope and wasn't simply limited to the US. Other countries, in particular Canada had a fair bit of coverage and retailers there actually took an even harder line against the distributor than those anywhere else. As others have rightly pointed out, Google news has changed and never seems to bring up any older results anymore, so that aspect of the argument can be ignored too. I see the products are still on sale too, and the book has even been translated into Russian.[31]--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The excuse that "Google news has changed and never seems to bring up any older results" (did it?) doesn't hold water. First, it's only an excuse, it still fails to provide evidence of notability. Second, "older results" is not the main problem. The lack of newer results which would satisfy the "Lasting coverage" aspect is the main problem. And for that you can't use supposed changes in Google news as an excuse. Like I said, searching Google news for the topic gets you zero hits "No results found for "Boys are Stupid Throw Rocks At Them".". "So no, that aspect cannot be ignored. The fact that product is on sale or translated into Russian is irrelevant. It says nothing about the notability of the event. I have no idea where you got that this was "Huge story with international scope".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one arguing that the lack of results in Google news was grounds for deletion, yet it is undeniable that the service is relatively useless compared to the way it used to operate. The fact that a service no longer functions properly is not grounds for deletion of articles. I barely get any results on Google news for the majority of the topics I search for these days, your "argument" could be used to delete half of the entire Wikipedia project. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but perhaps you can tell us how to get news results via Google news which are more than a month old, i certainly can't here in the UK, no matter what date range I select. It used to work perfectly but seems to have been broken since about February--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not doing anything wrong; they removed the "archive" search function and as such Google News is no longer a viable search option for anything but very recent news. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also note the most recent coverage is in Irish publications, again showing very clear international scope, not to mention a timespan of 8 years between the earliest and latest coverage.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What recent coverage in Irish publications? Link please. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why hasn't the creator of the article been informed that their work has been submitted for deletion? That's a pretty major oversight. The user who needs notifying is User:Bastel.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified him myself. really not impressed by the conduct of some of those trying to have deleted. No one bothers to notify the creator, yet the discussion gets listed a completely irrelevant projects such as Wikiproject feminism (no listing at Wikiproject books either despite it being part of that project)--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the creator wasn't notified is because according to article history, the User who created it, AFAICT, stopped editing in 2007. User:Bastel who expanded the article, also hasn't exactly been active in the past four years. So no, it's not a "major oversight". Please stop trying to create... controversy, where there is none.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you deliberately chose not to notify any of the creators of this article about this discussion? The fact that someone isn't all that active surely makes notification all the more urgent so they have a chance to see the message before the decision is made. If anyone here is "creating controversy" here then it's those failing to give appropriate notifications to people who are likely to want to keep the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's Volunteer Marek is "creating controversy", they gave their reasons for it and you were able to notify the user within minutes. All you are doing is derailing the discussion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What utter nonsense. It was the duty of those nominating this for deletion to notify the creator. Not only did they fail to do so, the error appears to be deliberate and at the very least no apology has been made. That's pretty disgraceful conduct by any standards. Others involved in trying to have this article removed, particularly any experienced editors, could also have at least checked to make sure everything was above board but they didn't bother either. You rightly point out how easy it is to notify the user, but it really shouldn't be down to me to do it. Finally, i realise you're fairly new here, but please do not undo any bolding in my comments, content such as the above is extremely important in assessing what's going on here and as such the bolding is entirely appropriate, particularly given the admission that followed it!--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lying. I never "admitted this was entirely deliberate!". I merely pointed out that the creator of the article has not been active on Wikipedia for many years. You're trying to play some idiotic "gotcha" game. Which given how this discussion has unfolded is just par for the course. And yes, bolding your own comments is obnoxious and very much like typing in all caps. Everyone thinks their own comment is "extremely important", just like a person shouting in a room believes that what they have to say is "extremely important". But it's really not. You might also want to hold off on lecturing new, but good faithed users, especially while your own conduct is quite disruptive. You come off as a bully.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I 'll tweak the comment as it isn't an outright admission. My apologies for the mistake. Perhaps while we're in the business of correcting things you can strike every single one of your totally false claims that lack of results in Google news meaning anything. Alternatively, you'll need to enlighten us all how to get results in Google news from more than month into the past . This is something I've previously requested with no reply, appears to still be confusing those new to this discussion and as such is the most derailing thing here. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just difficult to read the discussion or what the references say with so much bold text in such a small area. I mentioned that any editors could revert it in the edit summary, the main aim of the action was to make it easier for other editors to comprehend the conversation and possibly put the debate back on track. I was considering sectioning the whole argument off because quite frankly the amount of personal insults from "senior editors" is embarrassing and completely derailed the discussion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been now been listed in the relevant projects Men's Issues, Gender Studies, Feminism, and now Books as you requested --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at the WikiProject Books talk page [32] & WikiProject Feminism talk page [33]. Drowninginlimbo ^talk 19:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't satisfy GNG. It's this type of articles that adds nothing to wikipedia. They are just there for the sake of good (bad) publicity for corporations. --Korigjuesletrar (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Glenn Sacks. This only got any coverage because he brought it up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the Highbeam search results prove it easily passes the WP:GNG. Dream Focus 21:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Article has reliable sources and meets the general notability guidelines. Ging287 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the article satisfies GNG (having reliable sources is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for notability), rather than just blithely asserting that it does? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merging this with Sachs's article wouldn't be the end of the world, but this controversy does seem to have picked up a fair amount of coverage from local and national sources. I think this particularly controversy was part of an emerging concern over men's (and boy's) rights. Orser67 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Volunteer Marek makes a good argument for deletion, and while the event has a small amount of coverage, it's already in Sacks' own article, so this is basically a pointless content fork (and one that makes Sacks look like a chump, frankly) and there's nothing to merge. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't already in Sacks' article, other than a single sentence in the Campaigns section. It has far more than a small amount of coverage, just need to search for sources properly as Jeremy112233 explained. Dream Focus 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except Jeremey didn't really find anything other than a few sources from ten years ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A highbeam search for "Boys are stupid" "throw rocks at them" shows 37 results. [34] Read through the article summaries, and they are talking about this in different newspapers from January 2004 to as recently as 2012. Dream Focus 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"as recently as 2012" is a misleading way of saying there is one (1, uno, single, next integer after zero) article [35] from 2012 which barely mentions the ~~t-shirt~~ a magnet (NOT the controversy) in passing. This is not in depth coverage, actually, it's not even really coverage. The rest of the articles, are mostly from 2004/5, i.e. ten years ago (there might be one from 2007). And it's not 37 results since some of it just repeats the same hit multiple times. In fact all but a few of these outdated hits are NOT about the controversy and only mention the t-shirt (or magnet) in passing. That is nowhere near enough to satisfy inclusion guidelines linked to above. Please actually pay attention to the inclusion guidelines folks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy wasn't just when one person led a campaign against it. Media sources talk about this problem. And does anyone have full access to that entire article? Dream Focus 17:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that there were sources "as recently as 2012". I pointed out that this was a misleading way of relating the fact that there happened to be a single source from 2012 which barely mentions the topic... actually it doesn't even mention the topic, it just mentions a refrigerator magnet. And I pointed out that most of the ten year old sources only mention the t-shirt (not the controversy) in passing. And you... respond with a non-sequitur about how this wasn't just one person "led a campaign against it". Huh? Are we having a serious discussion here, or is this a "when I'm shown to be bullshitting about one thing, I'll just start bullshitting about another" kind of deal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dream Focus was not being misleading. Stating "sources as recently as" can include up to the last one, and, the wider the range, the longer the coverage. And using the word "bullshit" is a second instance of blantant incivility you have shown to other editors in this comment string. Swearing at people who don't agree with you is antithetical to Wikipedia's spirit and a clear policy violation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Technically. Literally. If no one pays attention. If you want to wikilawyer it. If you lack complete awareness and ability to think and evaluate. If you're obsessive about semantics. If you're arguing in bad faith. If you're trying to score cheap, but irrelevant points in a discussion rather than engaging the issue at hand. If you're twelve years old. Then "sources as recently as 2012", where out of ten or so sources, 9 are ten years old, and one, barely mentioning the topic, happens to be from 2012, is "true". Whoohoo! You win. But ... it is very much misleading. Because, you know. 9 out of 10.
And gimme a break with this "incivility" crap. What's incivil is accusing the other person of lying, in ALL CAPS, and bolded text, while weaseling the hell out of an issue yourself. The last recourse of someone with no good arguments: As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.” - Paul Krugman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point that on Wikipedia, you may well be speaking to a "12 year old", as you put it, when using such language and heated communication techniques. Because young people can indeed become involved here, and are encouraged to. Civility isn't meant to be a complex issue. It is meant to require editors to be as respectful as possible. And, if you prefer a legal analogy, using uncivil behavior in court automatically brings the law to the other side of the table you're pounding :) Luckily, we have no contempt of Wikipedia norms around these parts. As far as asking for civility goes, would it help if I said please :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you how my thought process ran : 1) Is the event sourced? Yes. 2) Can the event be represented in another article? Yes, Sacks' one. 3) Is Sacks' article big enough to require a content fork? No. That rules out "Keep", leaving a choice of "delete", "merge" or "redirect". 4) Is there large amounts of important content that should be preserved as a merge? No. Strike "Merge". 5) Is somebody likely to type "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy" into the search box? No. Strike "Redirect". The only option then left is "delete". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More than adequate sourcing to pass the General Notability Guideline. Nice article. Carrite (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
additional sources:
articles:

Recruiting kids into gender wars, [36], Clay Evans, 7/30/2005, Daily Camera 870 words
Guy Trouble, 06/06/2005, People Magazine, [37], 270 words
Don't throw rocks at him, he's not stupid., Chuck Taylor, Billboard Radio Monitor, June 3, 2005, [38]
This Boy's Not Stupid,Nancy Imperiale, June 5, 2004, Orlando Sentinel, [39] ~93 words
The mean T-shirt: From the Stupid Factory: Todd Goldman says his popular boy-bashing T-shirts are simply funny.,Georgie Binks, May 29, 2004, The National Post, weblink: www. canadiancrc . com/Newspaper_Articles/Nat_Post_The_Mean_TShirt_29MAY04.aspx, 1088 words
Bashing boys is, like, not OK,Danna Harman, The Christian Science Monitor,March 31, 2004, [40] 1243 words
Teed Off Over T Shirts, Isabel C. Gonzalez, Feb. 22, 2004, Time Magazine, [41]
Anti-Boy T-Shirts Get Boost from Boycott, Jean Scheidnes, February 29, 2004, Reuters, [42] 756 words
STORES PULL SHIRTS THAT SLAM BOYS, Suzanne Kapner, February 20, 2004, NY Post, [43] 384 words
Retailers pull 'Boys Are Stupid' products: Protests say merchandise may promote anti-male bias, AP, 1/29/2004, [44] 648 words
T-SHIRT TIFF VALLEY MAN GETS STORES TO PULL 'BOYS ARE STUPID' LOGO ITEMS, Brent Hopkins, January 30, 2004, Daily News (Los Angeles, CA), [45]
Goldman-Sacks controversy rocks David & Goliath Inc., Erika Engle, Friday, January 30, 2004, Honolulu Star Bulletin, [46]
Never underestimate customer's 'bad' taste, Young Chang, February 03, 2004, Seattle Times, [47]
Boys can't take a joke, throw rocks at them, Dennis Roddy, January 31, 2004, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, [48]
Clothing Designer Misses Point of 'Girl Power', Dana Williams, Tolerance.org (Project of Southern Poverty Law Center), February 3, 2004, [49]
Christmas in a war zone,Wendy McElroy, December 23, 2003, FoxNews.com, [50]
Does This T-Shirt Send The Right Message?, Dec 8, 2003, KOMO News, [51]
Are We Living in a Girls' World?, The Irish Times; August 7, 2012
Another example of bad taste: boy-bashing, Oakland Tribune, January 20, 2004, [52]
Girl Power as Boy Bashing: Evaluating the Latest Twist In the War of the Sexes, Jeffrey Zaslow, April 21, 2005, Wall Street Journal [53] 917 words
The Chilly World of the Campus Male, Warren Farrell, October 24, 2011, Minding the Campus, [54] (Farrell even mentions the fact that this controvery received enough notoriety to merit a wikipedia article
Telling it to the world on a T-Shirt, Suzanne S. Brown, Denver Post, April 12, 2004, [55]

Mentions/coverage in books (note: most of these books are published in 2006 and later)

Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care, By Kathleen Parker, pp.18-19, 2008, [56]
Your Boy: Raising a Godly Son in an Ungodly World, By Vicki Courtney, pp.161-162, 2006, [57]
Karla Marx, Marshall Rockford Goodman, pp.13, published 2008
Re-thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims, By Anthony Synnott, p.136, 2009, [58]
Does feminism discriminate against men?, Warren Farrell, James P. Sterba, pp:93,94, 2008, [59]
The Blue Book on Information Age Inquiry, Instruction and Literacy, Daniel Callison, Leslie Preddy, p. 381, published 2006, [60]
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37), Bernard Goldberg, pp60-62, 2005
Woman Power: Transform Your Man, Your Marriage, Your Life, Laura Schlessinger, pp.87-89, 2004

Coverage in scholarly/academic articles

An Introduction to Gender Equality Issues in the Marketing and Design of Goods for Children,M Valiulis, A O'Driscoll, J Redmond, pp23-24, 2007, The Equality Authority, Ireland [61]
"A trend has emerged in the field of marketing towards children whereby controversial images have been attached to children’s products. The two primary examples here would be the use of “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” imagery from David & Goliath, Inc. and the use of the Playboy ® symbol on children’s merchandise... The imagery used for this merchandise, in which cartoon girls can be seen throwing rocks at fleeing cartoon boys draws upon the idea of a battle between the sexes, and both feeds into and sustains a sense of conflict between boys and girls. It also demeans and insults boys. The imagery can be seen to differentiate children by gender and to promote ideas of dominance and violence with regard to the relationship between the genders. This imagery is exclusionary in a negative sense. The use of incitement to gender violence as a marketing ploy is antithetical to the promotion of equality and respect among children. The images used here, symbolising as they do a sense of gender war, both perpetuate and create the conflict that they represent. In doing so, they perpetuate division and hierarchy between children based upon their gender." (my bolding)
It's Just a Joke: Violence Against Males in Humorous Advertising, Charles S. Gulas, Kim K. McKeage, and Marc G. Weinberger. Journal of Advertising 39.4 (2010): 109-120. (Need someone with journal access to find details of coverage in this article)

The fact that an Irish commission on equality cited the "Boys are stupid" tshirts as a "primary" example of problematic gendered imagery on tshirts, and this is a report from 2007, to me is strong evidence of the lasting and sustained nature of this controversy and the impact it has had. Additionally, the fact that it is mentioned in at least 8 books, 6 of which were published 2 years after the events in question, again demonstrates that this event has long-term significance. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CAN YOU PLEASE STOP BOLDING HALF YOUR COMMENTS. ITS REALLY ANNOYING AND REALLY SIMILAR TO WHEN PEOPLE TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND INCLUDE LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THAT SOMEHOW MAKES THEIR POINT MORE IMPORTANT THAN IT REALLY IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bolding my comments, I'm bolding the titles of the articles. Relax.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Obiwankenobi: - it's convention to italicize the titles of articles, not bold them. Your unnecessary bolding is disrupting the flow of discussion significantly. Please reformat it to not be disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would disrupt anything. Whining about it needlessly does seem disruptive and pointless. Dream Focus 22:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SHOUT#shouting. Bolding a massive wall of titles disrupts the flow of the page and per TPG is not a good practice. Kevin Gorman (talk)

That reads "Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases". I think what he did made things more readable than italics would have. Dream Focus 22:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the title formatting was a mistake and not intentional. WP:AGF is probably the policy we should be reaching for in this case :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving undue emphasis to your own comments, throwing them in the reader's face, and over taking the discussion. It's obnoxious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first these are NOT "additional sources". These are the same sources, mostly from ten years ago, which have already been discussed. In the "articles" section ALL but ONE of the articles are from before 2005. The one which is from 2011 only mentions the t-shirt in passing and, more importantly, when it does so, it does it because of the article Wikipedia. That's the classic "create nonsense on Wikipedia, have it picked up by outside sources, use the outside sources to source the nonsense on Wikipedia" phenomenon. It's circular. No evidence of duration of coverage.

Second, all but a few of these are NOT about the controversy, they mention the t-shirt in passing or are minor local newspaper. Again, there's no evidence of depth of coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, I suggest you apologize. A lack of civility is completely uncalled for. If you feel annoyed, perhaps you should find a different part of the site to edit in the future. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. A lack of civility is when "Obi-Wan Kenobi" accuses me of using false edit summaries - without back up - or of making "false comments". On the other hand, there's nothing "incivil" in what I said above. I'm addressing policy and the issue, not the editor. Please point out where this "incivility" exists in the comment above. Or just look up "incivility" in a dictionary (that last comment is a bit incivil itself but deserved). And let me quote Paul Krugman here: As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.”.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Marek. I count at least 5 articles from after 2004 (and note: the campaign started in 2003, not 2004). More importantly, there are 6 books I count from 2006 and later, and two academic articles, including one which looks into the issue of the tshirts in depth. You claim "minor local newspaper" but you discount the fact that AP and Reuters, major wire services, both covered this issue. The vast bulk of sources above DO cover the topic in some detail - indeed most articles are fully ABOUT the controversy. You seem blinded by your spite for this article and are refusing to read the sources before your eyes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least 5 articles from after 2004 - nice try. How many since 2005? You're not sneaky.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, you said this: " In the "articles" section ALL but ONE of the articles are from before 2005" - to me, that means, all but ONE of the articles are from 2004 or earlier. I countered this pointing out there are 5 published AFTER 2004. I'm not being sneaky, and you are being blatantly misleading, especially by claiming this topic is not covered in depth, a most ridiculous claim.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator gutted the article before nominating for deletion

I just found the following edits by Volunteer Marek, done a month before nominating for deletion: [62],[63]],[64]],[65]]

Several of these deletions contain reliable sources (but they were removed with edit summary claiming non-RS), and others contain claims which are easily verifiable from sources already in the article, but VM declined to do the work, preferring to gut instead. Given the long list of sources I and others have found and documented, I can only assume that VM has one goal in mind which is deletion of this article irregardless of the facts or the sources, and he has made false edit summaries and blatantly false claims in all of his posts above, so all those saying that VM made a good argument are mistaken to take his claims at face value.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I removed was some blatant misrepresentation of sources and false citations.

In this edit I removed text which claimed that the Southern Poverty Law Center] got involved in the controversy - the source doesn't even mention SPLC! I also removed a bunch of uncited claims. The removal was fully justified as this was an obvious case of someone "lying with citations"

Marek, you're just being sloppy. The source cited there was tolerance.org, which is a project OF THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER. The author is a STAFF WRITER of said project. And in any case, you're edits are way too dragon-like - you didn't bother to check whether things were cited or covered, you just brute force deleted things without checking. It's sloppy work.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. You need a source which says "SPLC took a position on this", not a source - an editorial - which mentions the controversy. I almost feel like I should take the accusations that my edits were "dragon-like" (??? I think you might be watching too many cartoons) as a complement, though I'm guessing it's not intended that way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the source. Did you read what it says at the bottom? ">> UPDATE Feb. 4, 2004 -- Despite widespread protest, the David and Goliath clothing company says it won't stop producing its line of anti-boy items. The company also isn't apologizing for merchandise some consider blatantly racist.>> DO SOMETHING :: E-mail David and Goliath to let them know what you think about the "Boys are stupid" merchandise. Or contact them at: (address); Have you seen the "Boys are stupid" merchandise on the shelves of retailers in your area? Contact managers or owners, or draft letters of complaint and ask them to remove the merchandise from their stores. " this was a staff writer, on a project by the SLPC, asking people to write letters to complain and remove the merchandise. In what world is that not SLPC taking a position? Anyway, I doubt you even knew that tolerance.org was a SLPC project, so you didn't read the source anyway...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And that's a textbook example of WP:OR based on someone's interpretation of a primary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I removed a bunch of promo cited to a primary source by the guy who whipped up this artificial controversy.

In this edit I removed more bs original research sourced to primary sources and a whole bunch of badly written unsourced text.

In this edit I removed more original research and a nonsense section title (iconic status? gimme a freakin' break) and WP:SYNTH.

There were no "blatantly false claims" in any of my posts, nor were any of my edit summaries false. I would appreciate it if you quit making bullshit accusations.

Look. I can see that for whatever reason a few editors are desperate to keep this article, Wikipedia guidelines and policy be damned. But can you at least, like, not stoop to lying in pursuit of that aim? Thanks buddy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, your edit summaries WERE false. In several instances you removed material that was easily citeable or already covered in existing citations in the text, but which didn't yet have an inline link. In other instances you removed material that was cited to reliable sources but you called it "unreliable sources". That whole series of edits was in bad faith and when I get time I'm going to undo most of them. Anyway, this isn't the place to continue discussing this, I just think people coming here should know that you've taken bad-faith actions before nominating this for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. Stop accusing me of using false edit summaries, unless you're prepared to back that up. I don't know if the material was "easily citeable" - whether that is true or not, it was NOT cited. Claiming that it "didn't yet" have a link is nonsense, as the text had been sitting there for months. In other instances the material I removed was NOT cited to reliable sources but to primary sources or fluffy op-ed pieces (for statements of fact). Yet other stuff I removed misrepresented the sources. The only one acting in bad faith here is you. Or maybe not. Maybe you're just not familiar with actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court of law, anyone can look at your diffs and decide for themselves. I will sort out these edits later, but not here, we can discuss at the talk page of the article once this closes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, though that doesn't mean you get to lie about me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do two, to start with and demonstrate your misleading edit summaries. Here is the first one:

[66], edit summary "this is all sourced to Sacks - not reliable". Blatantly false! The source is the Boulder Daily Camera itself, and the text in question cites the two articles and the positions they took.

[67], edit summary: "remove unsourced and non-RS" - LIES LIES LIES!! All are quotes from reliable sources, and there is no synth, except perhaps the "iconic" moniker. Wall Street Journal is a rather reliable source, and the piece discusses the shirts and the controversy in detail.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly false! The source is the Boulder Daily Camera itself, - No. It appears you don't understand what a "citation" is. The text is *cited* to Sacks and the source - Sacks - gives his opinion of what BDC said. There is a *link* to BDC but all that cites is "In a BDC article". The claim(s), for example that the article was "condemned by its editorial board", and what some person said, is cited to Sacks. A primary, non reliable source, with an axe to grind. Please hold off on yelling "Blatantly false!" until you understand what a "citation" actually is.

LIES LIES LIES!! - I guess this time bolding everything wasn't enough, you just had to go with the ALL CAPS. Anyway. First the weaseling "except perhaps for the "iconic" moniker" sort of gives away more than half the issue, doesn't it? I mean, except for the important part, you maybe right. But even with that, you're not. The section title "iconic status in gender debates" is pure original research which somebody completely made up. Furthermore, there's a paragraph there with a ^{[citation needed]} tag, so yes, in fact I was removing "unsourced". Second, these are editorials and opinion pieces, which in no way establish "iconic status" in gender debates. Even if they were about this supposed status, they would not be reliable sources for the claim. What you would need here is academic or comprehensive sources which actually talks about this controversy being iconic - and editorials and opinion pieces, being merely (cherry picked) anecdotes, don't qualify. Please read WP:RS again. And stop it with the obnoxious accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) no, citing to an article that quotes somebody is not citing to the person quoted, 2) no one is yelling at you, quite the contrary, they are engaging with you peacefully and listening to your concerns with thought and care instead of merely dismissing you, and 3) thirdly, don't used the word "cherry-picked" in a tu quoque line of argumentation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that when someone writes LIES LIES LIES!! then that's ... "engaging with you peacefully"? That that constitutes "listening to your concerns with thought and care"? Really? Are you being daft? Or maybe you're trying to be humorous? I can't tell if this is just blatant dishonesty or particularly egregious stupidity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really good work, many thanks for all your efforts. By the way, I have sort-of managed to get Google news working. There is actually a service called "Google Newspapers" - it's far less useful than the old Google news service because it only deals with newspapers rather than all news sources, but it does at least produce a reasonable number of results. Here's the link: [68] - there might be a few more articles there to add to your already very impressive collection. Anyway this also further debunks the claim about Google not having news results.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News aside, there's ample coverage in Google Books. Andrew (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (and as we've already establish about 5 times), Google news no longer functions properly for any articles more than a month old. Try Google newspapers if you really must use Google to search for news (though you'll still usually be better off with Highbeam)--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its Google, and its news. Call it what you want. I asked the guy that removed Google news from the AFD search header, to add Google newspaper in its place. Dream Focus 21:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any info that isnt already in the relevant articles to those articles. The minor kerfuffle can be easily covered in Glenn Sacks article. Most of the coverage was superficial and fleeting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was coverage in UK newspapers at the time, though not much seems to show up on Google now. The article should also say more about the now persistent ongoing low-level use of this phrase, which is extraordinarily tiresome. RomanSpa (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Discussion regarding the possibility of a merger can take place on article talk pages. There's clearly no consensus for deletion here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of spades[edit]

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

Not really long enough to have its own article, for the same reason I am nominating the following other articles

Please help me put this template on the above pages as I am using Twinkle. Most of the stuff covrered in the above articles is also covered in at least one other article.The ChampionMan 1234 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to rank articles (e.g. Ace). They don't merit standalone articles. (I've tagged the other articles for Afd.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Not really long enough to have its own article" is not a valid deletion rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ace of hearts, just looking at one of these, looks to be a fine, if somewhat short, article. The only argument I've seen for deletion here is that all the material found here is covered elsewhere. Could you indicate where for each of those articles? ~~keep~~ is where I am for now. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all it's clear deletion isn't called for. I see no reason to merge these, and if we did, it's not clear where to merge them. That would be better addressed as a talk-page discussion in any case. Being a stub isn't a reason for deletion, and it isn't even a reason to merge. Hobit (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I created Ace of hearts, and it is by far the most developed of all of them so I think we should speak about this AFD int he context of that article. That card givs some context to what the end result of an article on a card might look like, as opposed to those simple stubs. Oh, and also Keep as creator of AoH, and as supporter of these types of articles in general.--Coin945 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all: Individual playing cards not really notable aside from the top of playing cards as a whole p b p 01:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is satisfied and so, yes, they really are notable. Andrew (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't preclude merger... p b p 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The shortness of the current drafts is not a reason to delete. Some of the pages such as ace of spades are already too large for merger per WP:SIZERULE and there seems to be plenty of material and sources to do more. Andrew (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of spades is a poor example because it is likely to have a stronger case for notability than the others because card companies usually put their logo or some other special design on. Also, I don't believe WP:SIZERULE is applicable here: since Ace of Spades is well under 40 KB, it can be merged. p b p 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ace of Spades. The rest can be merged into articles about Tarots, or whatnot. The Ace of Spades article has valid referenced information about it which would not fit elsewhere, how the design was changed at times to prove a tax was paid on it, etc. Dream Focus 10:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, or merge all into playing card or more appropriate article. BOZ (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all articles to one. Harsh (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Each article has enough content in its own right. Structurally, the articles don't appear readily mergeable, since each article seems to cover slightly different things. The only caveat is to make sure that King (card) doesn't overlap too heavily with each individual king article - but that's an improvement suggestion rather than a AfD comment. Aspirex (talk) 07:33, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis G. Zall[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTORS as she has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions nor has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She is most well known for her videos on YouTube and at this time only has had minor roles on any television show or film. MJ94 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm not finding coverage in independent reliable sources to show that she meets WP:GNG at this time. Gongshow talk 07:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not had any roles yet that would make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mesquite High School (Mesquite, Texas)[edit]

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

Should be deleted or merged to a page listing all high schools in Mesquite, Texas as none of them by themselves meet the criteria for notability. Most references listed are to the main school website and does not show any claim to notability and should fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only claim to notability that could be argued is winning the 2001 state championship, but I am not sure if that is enough to warrant a full article. TheMesquito (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator TheMesquito (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is going to be WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - high schools are generally considered notable. Stalwart111 10:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable under the longstanding consensus about the standards applied to public high schools. We evaluate articles based on their notability, not based on the current state of the article. Examples of coverage: [69][70][71][72] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 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 02:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Projectproject[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable performing group; requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Local sources only mention group briefly or do not satisfy WP:GNG/WP:RS. First AFD was closed without any editors' weighing in, and the article still does not meet policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure why the last AFD wasn't just treated like an uncontested (re-listed twice) PROD but I would have weighed in had I seen it. Anyway, I can't find anything to suggest the subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. There's a little bit of coverage but what I could find is all very, very local. Stalwart111 03:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to no quorum present. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 06:07, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources to establish non-local notability. -Iago Qnsi 13:01, 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, withdrawn by the nominator (non-admin closure). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fertik[edit]

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

Article has been marked for notability concerns for three years. I note that the current page relies heavily on primary sources, extremely low-quality sources and sources that are better-incorporated into the Reputation.com article. Quick searches do not reveal any indication he meets the bar for an article. CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE, a lot of this person's notability is inherited from the Reputation.com article. It would be better suited to be redirected and merged there. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Google suggests there's a recent NYTimes article about him that hasn't been incorporated. Fix and keep?BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT It appears there were concerns about the quality of sources. As a start, I have added three New York Times articles about the subject (each with a photo that is not properly licensed for use here). I am abstaining from voting due to a non-financial COI, but I hope the new sources have improved the article.Sunnymale (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, but it looks like the New York Times sources are Q&As or tips-focused. They do help establish that he has attracted notice from reliable sources, but they don't provide much content for the article. CorporateM (Talk) 13:32, 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) 05:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I think CorporateM raises some good points, so I have further updated the article. Again, I have a declared non-financial COI so I'm not going to vote, but I believe CorporateM's issues have been addressed. As to notability, the article now links to articles about Fertik in the New York Times, Forbes, The Chicago Sun-Times, and a few others, plus some TV profiles (such as 20/20). That should be enough under WP:BIO to show multiple reliable independent sources (full articles with photos about him in more than 3 national print publications plus some TV), but there's also the role in World Economic Forum, the book he published, and his columns for Inc., HBR blogs, and the Washington Post. Each of those (WEF, bestselling book, columns) doesn't prove notability by itself, but in combination it should get across the hump under the secondary WP:BIO criteria even without the publications. As to the quality of sources, I agree that it wasn't great originally. I've tried to add profiles from third-party sources (Businessweek, Inc., Harvard Magazine, etc.) on major facts. I don't think it's perfectly sourced yet, but it's at least improving. Sunnymale (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he may in fact meet the bar. I'm going to give the article a once-through and see what we have. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I withdraw my nomination. Sunnymale has provided adequate sources to validate his notability. Additionally, the sources say that he pioneered the field of online reputation management, that he has won a notable award, and they include details like where he went to college that are not appropriate for a merge to the company page. I will do some more work on it to make sure it complies with our standards. CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Mesquite High School[edit]

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

Should be deleted or merged to a page listing all high schools in Mesquite, Texas as none of them by themselves meet the criteria for notability. Only one reference is listed and makes no claim for notability and should fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY TheMesquito (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator TheMesquito (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is going to be WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - high schools are generally considered notable. Stalwart111 10:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable under the longstanding consensus about the standards applied to public high schools. We evaluate articles based on their notability, not based on the current state of the article. Examples of coverage: [73][74][75][76] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:28, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom Keepers[edit]

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

~~This series likely fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NBOOK. The few reviews I can find are either very brief or self-published (e.g. blogs). --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)~~ I no longer support delete (see below) --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like the nom stated there are a lot of reviews (on the individual books in the series), but no major criticisms or commentaries on the series as a whole. The books are already thoroughly mentioned on the author's page (Ridley Pearson) and covered extensively on The DisneyWiki. I believe the first book did win a Florida state award in 2005, but no major literary awards. In the series' favor, I did find this NY Times article which discusses a new Disney approach to interactive media and briefly discusses how the series plays into that approach; it made the NY Times bestseller list (not sure this helps); and this mention in the Washington Post. Resources seem kind of thin for inclusion. EBstrunk18 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a re-write of the whole page, essentially, and I've found enough coverage to warrant a keep. I would recommend putting the character section on its own page at List of The Kingdom Keepers characters, as it's an extremely long section and there's precedent for similar lists at places such as List of American Horror Story characters. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep Nice work Tokyogirl79! EBstrunk18 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a detailed, referenced article about a young adult book series like Harry Potter. Sure, there is room for improvement but every article on WP could be improved and it's clear this one is being worked on and developed. I don't see any good reason why this article should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the original nominator for deletion, I've been convinced of the notability of the series. The merge of individual books to the main article seems prudent, and I also support a separation of characters into List of The Kingdom Keepers characters, to keep the article more centered in the real-world.--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and branch that out to another page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 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. No prejudice against creating a redirect to the film he wrote/produced — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Despite being saved at last nomination, there are few independent sources where the subject is the focus of the article. Also fails WP:FILMMAKER. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I know next to nothing about Australian TV dramas, I do know how to do a Google search, and I am also aware that the nominator knows Australia well. It seems that this fellow had minor roles on three notable TV series, and once made a short film. That's not enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that he is not notable as an actor. What he did do is is write direct and produce Salute (2008 film) which is notable. At the least this article should be merged/redirected there. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the film doesn't seem to meet WP:MOVIE and Norman doesnt meet WP:FILMMAKER Flat Out let's discuss it

For Salute have a look at some reviews linked here. Eg [77] (appeared in the print version of The Age, not just that blog.) [78] [79]. Also a full length article in Hawker, Philippa (15 July 2008). "Salute to a champion". The Age. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. How then does Norman meet WP:FILMMAKER Flat Out let's discuss it 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he might not, so redirect or merge instead of deleting. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

happy to support redirect if that is your vote. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Matt Norman is well know actor, I understand he is known only in Australia.User:Lucifero4

Comment he isn't well known in Australia but that isnt the point, please comment on the subjects notability as per WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient evidence to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient criteria to meet WP:NACTOR. Insignificant, minor roles. KarlDefoe (talk) 22:42, 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. Treating this as an uncontested PROD owing to the complete lack of interest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basab Pradhan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. claim to notability is being head of sales in a major company. that is hardly notable. also most of the article is about minor facts about him. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:37, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 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. Delete and salt. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE)[edit]

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

Did not see any notablity reference other than facbook pages and adds in news paper Shrikanthv (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ - I have carefully considered the content of the page and with my ability to read the regional language, it is a proper press release and not a newspaper ad. Press releases are considered to be notable. I do not think there is reason to delete. I have also added categories to list it correctly Streethawk83 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ - Thank you. Another reference added " Gomolo on FFACE dated 25.3.2014" to make the article even stronger. awesomeme111 21:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It sounds like it has good intent - But is it notable? Bearian (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Sorry. I had a search for Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence, excluding Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, & YouTube, and got an epic six hits - absolutely none of which were valid as sources. I simply can't see any notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only Google book references are to a middle English alternate spelling of 'fface'. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - It has Indian Regional and National Dailies News Coverage awesomeme111 20:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)

~~*Keep~~ Definitely verifiable content. Involvement of loads of distinguished people from film and fashion. Tags changed to additional citation requirement.Soma1959 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, and I found a press release by a notable journal Ebela, sister concern of The Telegraph (Calcutta). The fame fashion and creative excellence article's reference no 5 confirms a press release in this specific journal. 203.171.222.5 (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note press release can be done by any person and cannot be used for notablity

Comment seems sockpuppeting and ip's are spamming the deletion process for keeps!! Shrikanthv (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the above reason and reference is quite correct, sockpuppeting is not at all acceptable (apologies if that's not the case). A request to all, please note that Wikipedia articles should always merit to be an encyclopedia article and has to be notable. Please don't try to disrupt the debate by spamming keeps and deletes. We need to have a clear consensus and have a healthy debate to ensure if the article qualifies for a wikipedia article. If possible, encourage in improving the article. awesomeme111 17:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Additional citation added - Tollywood Dhamaka. Retrieved 25 March 2013.awesomeme111 22:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 06:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've relisted this AfD and protected this page. Looks like some socking or meatpuppeting hase been going on to disrupt the process. → Call me Hahc21 06:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socks notification , I have just check the keeps comment seems all are socks of the creator of the article socks here : User talk:Streethawk83 , Awesomeme111 , Soma1959 Shrikanthv (talk) 07:47, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on what I've seen since my comment, this is mere spam being pushed by advocates. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I have semi-portected the page for 24 hours to prevent another removal of the WP:AfD tag. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Bearian. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Mesquite High School[edit]

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

Should be deleted or merged to a page listing all high schools in Mesquite, Texas as none of them by themselves meet the criteria for notability. No references are listed and shows not claim of notability and falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY TheMesquito (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator TheMesquito (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is going to be WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - high schools are generally considered notable. Stalwart111 11:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable under the longstanding consensus about the standards applied to public high schools. We evaluate articles based on their notability, not based on the current state of the article. Examples of coverage: [80][81][82][83] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:32, 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) 09:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Rai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. An electorally unsuccessful politician. This is one of a series of articles seemingly created by Aam Aadmi Party-centric contributors in the run-up to the 2014 Indian elections, of which similar ones such as Subhash Ware have already been deleted via AfD. Wikipedia should not be the place to promote election candidates and minor party functionaries. Sitush (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 06:13, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We have almost always deleted articles about unsuccessful North American political candidates; we should do the same for South Asian candidates in similar circumstances. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of National Executive and high profile leader in the political party. Min2winit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The national executive of the AAP is a large, unelected body of cronies with no real influence because of the AAP's grassroots/localist agenda. Thus, membership has counted for nothing in the recent deletion debate for, say, Subhash Ware. As for "high profile", well, you'll see that said on about 80 per cent of all our articles about Indian politicians - it is a vacuous phrase, often seen together with other vague terms such as "senior leader". - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass notability requirements for politicians. Thrub (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Meets WP:GNG as per [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. Besides, a simple web search will provide some other significant sources too.

As for WP:POLITICIAN, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage does constitute notability. He's a member of Political Affairs Committee of a major Indian political party [89] & [90].

I'll try to improve refs in the article though. Harsh (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Also agree with above Keep Points. I hope User:Harsh_2580 will be able to improve the article further. --DBig Xray 23:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have provided following refs and added some content - IndiaTV, FirstPost, YahooNews, DNA, MSN News. I hope this is more than enough to have this article saved. Harsh (talk) 15:43, 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. Treating this as a supported prod owing to the lack of interest in this case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Child Rights[edit]

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

Does not meet WIki notibality , may be fraud to collect donations Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 06:13, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I can't attest one way or the other about the honesty of the campaign, it appears to be just that - merely a campaign, and a non-notable one at that. I tried some Google searches, and found lots of information about how this campaign is raising attention and funds, but not about any actual results. This advert will need a major re-write even if it is eventually kept. See also Think of the children and Nancy Grace. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 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. No prejudice against the creation of a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tathastu Information Technology[edit]

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

15 employees and really not reference given on notibality of the companyShrikanthv (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 06:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find company listings and a brief press mention of the company name in the context of a list of its managing director's interests but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:INDAFD. Notable in context to India.117.194.202.77 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:INDAFD is not a waiver of the need to demonstrate notability. It does describe some particular circumstances at WP:INDAFDKI but none concerns companies. What aspect do you think applies for this particular firm? AllyD (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This farm have been involved in several Govt. of India projects. Google does not indexed those links. Please, use this link [91]. 117.194.204.248 (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I previously looked at these links on that page. Which do you think is evidence of notability? Please note that being involved in projects is not inherently of encyclopaedic notability - it is what any and every company does. AllyD (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to its CEO Anand Mishra as there are some local newspapers coverage. Bisswajit 07:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:27, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Ghosh Media[edit]

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

no notablilty and reference stated only anonces the upcoming movie and nothing about notability of the media company Shrikanthv (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious delete. Most refs don't even mention the production house. The producer's article itself was deleted for not being notable WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sumit_Ghosh. Harsh (talk) 13:21, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Corey (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. STATic message me! 18:45, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poteet High School (Mesquite, Texas)[edit]

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

Should be deleted or merged to a page listing all high schools in Mesquite, Texas as none of them by themselves meet the criteria for notability. Only one reference is listed about being a "Blue Ribbon School" and should fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY TheMesquito (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominatorTheMesquito (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is going to be WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - high schools are generally considered notable. Stalwart111 11:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable under the longstanding consensus about the standards applied to public high schools. We evaluate articles based on their notability, not based on the current state of the article. Examples of coverage: [92][93][94][95] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Horn High School[edit]

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

Should be deleted or merged to a page listing all high schools in Mesquite, Texas as none of them by themselves meet the criteria for notability. All links are from the main school website and contains no secondary sources proving notability and fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY TheMesquito (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator TheMesquito (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is going to be WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - high schools are generally considered notable. Stalwart111 11:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable under the longstanding consensus about the standards applied to public high schools. We evaluate articles based on their notability, not based on the current state of the article. Examples of coverage: [96][97][98] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 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 speedy delete. hoax The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hirnaxi Karelia filmography[edit]

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

No evidence to substantiate filmography exists, let alone is notable per WP:MOVIE and WP:N. Main topic, Hirnaxi Karelia likely fails WP:BIO. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AFD for parent article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hirnaxi Karelia, related article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Hirnaxi Karelia. Obviously, if the bio is deleted, there's no basis for this existing, so these should have been bundled into one AFD nomination. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Hirnaxi Karelia[edit]

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

No evidence to substantiate claim, and Hirnaxi Karelia likely fails WP:BIO --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being nominated for one award does not justify a list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AFD for parent article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hirnaxi Karelia, related article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hirnaxi Karelia filmography. Obviously, if the bio is deleted, there's no basis for this existing, so these should have been bundled into one AFD nomination. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 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.

Chess.com[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, discussion started by banned user

AfDs for this article:

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

The nominated article fails to comply with Wikipedia Policy on Reliable Sources as well as the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline. The subject does not have substantial coverage in reliable peer reviewed sources. While the article has many footnotes and alleged sources, an examination of the same reveals that the subject merely has many trivial and fleeting mentions in sources, yet not the substantial coverage required under Wikipedia policy. A plethora of trivial mentions are not the equal of even two reliable sources that cover the subject in a substantial manner. That is a distinction that got drowned out in past AFD discussions of this article. Jack55430 (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination by banned user. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This has been done before. Banned user is trying to get this page deleted. --ChessFiends (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, even though winter is almost over. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice storms[edit]

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

Unsourced list, no clear criteria for inclusion, most of the storms don't have articles. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, clean up It's not completely unsourced: all the storms that have their own articles have some sources in the linked articles. Lists don't have to have the references in the actual list article in this case. However, it might be worthwhile removing the ones that aren't notable enough to have their own article. --Slashme (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid list indexing articles that satisfies WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN, and arguably WP:LISTN as sources do discuss ice storms as a group and compare them. The inclusion criteria would be, at a minimum, the same as Category:Ice storms (i.e., "is this an article about an ice storm?"), though editors may also validly decide that there are more ice storm articles that should exist, and non-notable entries could even be included by consensus so long as they are verifiable. Ultimately the nomination raises only cleanup issues and no valid ones for deletion. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Ice storms and WP:LISTPURP per the blue-links to storm articles. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, per the above comments. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NOTDUP & LISTPURP. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article gives a good list of the Ice Storms. But I think we need references for all the storms. If proper references are added then it can be a good WP:LIST. I don't find any reason to delete this article. Unatnas1986 (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald (musician)[edit]

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

How important is American Idol? This person finished eighth. In addition, they're in a band that sold 9000 copies of a self-released album (and wouldn't be notable by our standards). Their appearance on Idol is likely to be reliably references, but that begs the question of whether that makes this guy notable: the possible plethora of mentions in TV guides and gossip magazines related to Idol is not evidence of real-life notability, and the article and the man's career seem to indicate a lack of real-life notability. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with less than 10,000 records the artist fails wp:music--Jeffrd10 (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol (season 10)#Finalists At the very least his marriage to Nikki Reed gives him just the barest notability, but outright deletion of him from here isn't needed. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep Alright, I'm convinced; sources have been found, taking this from thinly-sourced to well-sourced. Nate • (chatter) 13:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached, per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_31.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do agree with the DR relist on this mainly on the grounds that it should've had a re-list back when it was up here at first. However, my RD rationale stands despite the added sources coming in since the subject's divorce (which does need to be updated in the article itself). However, I am apt to changing my mind if a new consensus or more good sourcing comes in. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sourcing would help you change your mind? --Jpcase (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (Vote from Deletion Review nominator) - I don't feel that there's any reason for this article to be deleted or redirected. It can be sourced with a lot more than just "TV guides and magazines". Here's just a small sampling of the countless professional, independent sources that have covered McDonald:

USA Today - [99], [100]

Nashville Business Journal [101]

MTV [102], [103]

OK Magazine [104]

New York Daily News [105], [106]

Huntsville Times [107]

People Magazine [108], [109], [110]

Entertainment Weekly - [111], [112], [113]

TVLine.com - [114], [115], [116]

Yahoo! Music - [117], [118], [119]

The Hollywood Reporter - [120], [121], [122]

Los Angeles Times - [123]

Fox News - [124]

--Jpcase (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should note that this article doesn't actually fail WP:MUSIC. I don't know which criteria Jeffrd10 was referencing, but none of them say that an artist has to sell a certain number of albums in order to be notable. In fact, an artist doesn't even have to meet every single one of the criteria in order to have an article. My understanding is that a person really only has to meet the first criteria, which is basically the same as the general notability guidelines. As I've demonstrated above, McDonald meets this many times over. However, he also meets criteria #2, #4, #9, #10, #12, and possibly #6. --Jpcase (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike many finalists who have come and gone never to be heard from again, there seems to be a fair amount of coverage on this person's post-Idol career, from recording a single with Reed to his plans to write a song for Twilight to having a song premiere on an episode of Parenthood to recording an EP with Reed to opening for Hanson on tour. In my view, there is enough material to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 07:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC and has received post-American Idol coverage in reliable sources, thus not failing WP:BLP1E. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 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 redirect to Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards#Best Visual Effects (2002-2003). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Visual Effects[edit]

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

Award given out twice, once in 2002, the other in 2003, it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, newly created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13. --do ncr am 15:27, 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 01:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now covered by Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 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. → Call me Hahc21 04:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeatVision[edit]

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

Struggling to discover how this product passes WP:GNG and our general product notability guidelines. I thought I discovered some sources that were about "NeatVision," but it turns out they were about "Neat Vision," which is not the same thing, from what I gather.

Perhaps others can show otherwise! This is part of a project do clean out some very old (uh...2006) orphans! SarahStierch (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Delete - Doesn't appear to quite meet WP:GNG. I found one source (listed below), but independent coverage in multiple reliable sources are required. If additional sources are found, please ping or notify me on my talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Vision Algorithms in Java: Techniques and Implementation. pp. 17-19.

This source was written by the author of NeatVision so probably not WP:INDEPENDENT. ~KvnG 13:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Sure enough, upon reading the official webpage here, this does appear to be the case. I have updated my !vote to delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tried again to find reliable sources. Failed. ~KvnG 13:41, 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, clearly passes WP:GNG as a number of reviews in major media were found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The_Gurkha's_Daughter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Gurkha's Daughter

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

This book has been shortlisted for a prize, and received some favorable press. So have many others, however, and not all of them are deserving of their own Wikipedia page. I would opt for deletion for lack of notability. Shurjoroi (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It received lengthy reviews from two major Indian newspapers and is shortlisted for the Dylan Thomas Prize. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this, but I still fail to see how a shortlisted book (for an award it did not win) ought to have its own page. Wikipedia:Notability_(books) mentions winning a major prize (like the Man Booker Award or the like) as a criterion. Otherwise Wikipedia would be teeming with articles on books shortlisted for various competitions. I'm not saying the book is necessarily bad, just that it's not notable enough for its own page, that's all. Take Nilanjana Roy's "The Wildings": it won the Shakti Bhatt and got loads of good press, but it doesn't have its own Wikipedia page. I'm still for delete.--Shurjoroi (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it got substantial reviews is the main point. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't a viable argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could've explained myself better. My concern is with the fact that, the book having been published by a big publisher, it is bound to get reviews in major newspapers. This is often part of a publisher's marketing strategy. So I was concerned about ensuring greater independence by giving greater weight to awards (or lack thereof), so as to steer clear of WP:SPIP. I would, however, welcome more contributions to this discussion, to see whether a consensus can begin to emerge.--Shurjoroi (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about India, but in North America, being put out by a big publisher doesn't automatically get you a long review. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging with Prajwal Parajuly? Having looked at other literature-based AfD debates, it would seem a bit excessive to remove the page as such. On the other hand, given that the author is notable for writing this particular book, it might make more sense to merge the two articles?--Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews by The Guardian [125], Mint [126]. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:48, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Livio & Roby[edit]

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

Musicians. Do the references establish notaility? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look notable to me. The references mostly mention their work, but fall short of establishing notability, as per WP:ARTIST. Delete. Shurjoroi (talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this might pass WP:BAND or other relevant criteria. None of the sources provided even comes close to meeting WP:RS criteria, or even covering them in depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Resident Advisor, Mixmag & DJ Mag are unquestionably RS—all three address the subject significantly in my view. 78.19.63.176 (talk) 00:38, 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 00:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage. There may be some in their native language, but I don't speak it. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know which sources i would need to include to keep this entry up? Resident Advisor, DJ Mag and Mixmag are the biggest publications within this music scene. Ashleyc1990 (talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Valentine[edit]

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

Propose deletion. The book was shortlisted for a prize, but hasn't won anything else. It does not meet Wikipedia: notability_(books), hence my nomination Shurjoroi (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 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 00:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found several reviews and articles in general about the book and have added them accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources prove significance of the work, awards not required for notability (and shortlisting proves relative significance), Sadads (talk) 14:44, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children's use of information[edit]

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

'Withdrawn by nominator based on feedback from Bearian below. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC) While this article is well-sourced, it is really an essay on childhood learning. Childrens Use of Information is not supported as notable. The subject fails WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a valid use by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative. Problems with the format (essay-like) can be fixed through the normal editing process. Please don't bite the psych students! Bearian (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. The nom badly runs afoul of WP:BEFORE - see this Google search. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ubisoft. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft Chengdu[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of the company in reliable sources. The two sources given are just interviews. I propose to redirect it to Ubisoft. Odie5533 (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: then redirect to Ubisoft. Minimal content that can be covered in a section of the main article.► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 03:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 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 00:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ubisoft. A deletion discussion isn't really necessary to do a merge and redirect, but here we are. The content of this article could be a section of the main article. Novusuna ^talk 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ubisoft, which presently has only a short listing describing Ubisoft Chengdu. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 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. → Call me Hahc21 04:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jonah Euclid[edit]

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

no indication of notability John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So little coverage that it is unclear whether the subject is one person or a group of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I wondered if this might be a hoax, but the person is mentioned in various blogs, so I suspect he's not a total invention. However, none of the blogs is a Reliable Source, and I could find absolutely no coverage in any Reliable Source. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 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.