Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 December	13 December >

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 keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Diduch[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG as per Nfitz below. IJA (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how can anyone think that the top scorer in the Honduran league wouldn't have met WP:GNG based on contemporary coverage? That doesn't matter though, as he meets WP:NFOOTY with many fully professional appearances a decade ago in Argentina. If you look in the Spanish version of the article es:Sergio Diduch it notes that he played for a few Argentinian teams, including Club Atlético Sarmiento back in 2004 when they were bouncing between Primera B Nacional and Primera B Metropolitana both of which listed in WP:FPL as fully professional leagues. Preceding his tranfer to Sarmento he played for Club Social y Deportivo Flandria in 2003-2004, which was then in Primera B Metropolitana (listed in WP:FPL), for which he scored many goals, some of which are documented in [1]. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nfitz. Meets WP:NFOOTY, and as a top goalscorer in a country's top league, also meets GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nfitz Passes WP:GNG and he was the top scorer in the Liga Nacional de Honduras .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Lutheran Church (Wichita, Kansas)[edit]

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

Fails Notability (organizations and companies). The article is mostly about an infamous criminal who was president of the church council at the time of his arrest. TFD (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep pretty easy to find coverage. Granted that the notoriety came from association with the murder case, but there's enough to hold up a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it is pretty easy, can you point to some of these voluminous sources? TFD (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure: Here's the items 2-5 of the google search (1 was the Wikipedia page): (1) BTK Killer and Church Board President: One and the Same? 2, 2005 (2) Within minutes, he was before the congregation of Christ Lutheran Church, beginning to guide them through what he says will be a long journey of healing. Remembering the Dick Tracy of Wichita Post-Feb 18, 2014 ... the homicide unit of the Wichita, Kansas Police Department because he ... the Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita by someone named Dennis. (3) Rader details how he killed 10 people 28, 2005 WICHITA, Kansas (CNN) -- Dennis Rader, the BTK serial killer who ... Christ Lutheran Church pastor Michael Clark said Rader, also a former ... (4) Victim's brother describes killing linked to BTK 3, 2005 (CNN) -- The brother of a Wichita, Kansas, woman believed to have been ... On Christ Lutheran Church's Web site, Clark says Rader has held ... (5) BTK: Out Of The Shadows

News-Oct 1, 2005 ... the victims of a serial killer who terrorized Wichita, Kansas for three decades. .... search turned up a Dennis Rader, president of the Christ Lutheran Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 December 2014

I meant anything about the church, rather than Rader, which mentions the church in passing. I mean, when was it built? To which Lutheran synod does it belong? Does it have a choir? How many people attend? Who was the first pastor? Where do they stand on same sex marriage, the ordination of women? What, other than Rader, has attracted on-going media attention? TFD (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than this connection with the murder, there is nothing notable about this church. The shoe polish brand of the murderer would have equal weight because of this connection, if this article was included. Dinkytown talk 04:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you could say that if the shoe polish brand played into the series of murders and had coverage enough to meet WP:GNG. This was a significant location in multiple homicides.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With some regret, delete -- apart from having a serial killer in its leadership ([[WP:COATHANGER applies), there is no reason to beleive that this is not a very typical local church. The consensus is that most of those are NN, and we rgularly delete them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails every single factor of my standards for notability of churches. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not about you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Although the church has received coverage for its architecture [2] and for being the church of Dennis Rader, there doesn't appear to be enough sources that address the church directly and in detail. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 not so much for the copyvio but because the author clearly has made absolutely no attempt to find out what a Wikipedia article should look like. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Women, Ageing and Media[edit]

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

Article about an organization, copied directly from the organization's own website and sourced exclusively to primary sources which cannot confer notability. Further, the creator asserts on the talk page that she was the original author of the content that's been copied over, so there's a conflict of interest problem here as well. The organization might certainly qualify for a neutrally written article sourced to properly reliable sources, but Wikipedia is not an advertising database on which any organization is entitled to simply repost part or all of its own website without properly demonstrating that it passes any of our inclusion standards. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Just added speedy delete tag for copyright violation. Vrac (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per Bearcat's reasons. Dinkytown talk 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn per this comment. Huon (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Judaism[edit]

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

Article used for religious advertisment per WP:SPAM, and a free-to-post original works per WP:OR. JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the article is being used to advertise something inappropriately then that should be edited out and the article protected. There are plenty of sources - any reason all of them should be considered unreliable to the point where this topic no longer passes WP:GNG? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: Every reference in the article are all based on advertising organizations per WP:OR. In truth, there is not a single source, nor any relevant information other than redirecting to these organizations per WP:SPAM. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is plainly mistaken:

Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism
The Atlantic
AlterNet
Playlist Judaism: Making Choices for a Vital Future

And there are plenty more. The above books are referenced extensively, especially Rushkoff's work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The contention that this article has problems does not warrant deleting it. The topic is clearly a valid one for an article and fits well under the broader rubric of open-source religion and the free culture movement. The editor proposing deletion is free to instead edit it to address the stated concerns or discuss them on its talk page. The statement that "there is not a single [non-advertising] source" is incorrect even now, e.g. for the Atlantic article. Shorespirit (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Shorespirit Open-source religion is an article based on an organization and not policy. What are you suggesting from article Open-source religion? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII I'm afraid I don't understand your question at all. The article open-source religion does not deal with one particular organization but with a concept with which various organizations have been affiliated. Open-source Judaism can be considered a subset of open-source religion, and the situation of its article is analogous. Shorespirit (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shorespirit Do not manipulate the content of this discussion as you did here: [3], and I am assuming your stating with these article's open-source religion and the free culture movement that anyone on Wikipedia can state their thoughts on Wikipedia articles involving religion. If I am wrong about this, please do clarify. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII Your understanding of what I wrote is indeed completely wrong. My point, in the context of this thread, is that open-source religion and free culture movement are phenomena that are proper topics for Wikipedia articles, and that Open Source Judaism is equally valid. Shorespirit (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think there's a serious language barrier here somewhere and JudeccaXIII is struggling to get his head around guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And these weren't "assumptions"; that was general advice. But I'm happy to retain all relevant discussion here rather than raising it quietly on your talk page. That's a silly response to obviously well-intentioned, non-template suggestions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111 All I asked was some clarification, that was it. Do not contradict the topic towards me as I will consider it off-topic per WP:LISTEN to avoid "Deletion of article" per WP:LISTEN. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to draw attention to your conduct to "avoid deletion". Deletion will be avoided (the article will be kept) because the subject is notable and this was an ill-considered nomination contrary to WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content Automation[edit]

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

Prod disputed. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Per WP:G11. The article is written in a promotional tone, and the talk page of this article makes it plainly obvious the intent is to promote. James1011R (talk, contribs) 01:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for so many reasons: no sources, promotional tone, etc. However, if user:Bill Mendelson is only this account, he is a new-be and needs some guidance. I don't believe his article was malicious. Dinkytown talk 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Absolutely nothing good to say about this unverified spam. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this is WP:NAD. At worst it is a candidate for Speedy Deletion as spam. Either way Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Although I do think there is an article to be written on this topic. This article doesn't explain exactly what it is, but here and here it is defined as inputting some keywords so that a tool can go out and grab someone else's content and format it for your page. Not recommended, and probably not what this article was supposed to be about. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus herein for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines Flight 317[edit]

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

Failure to comply with WP:NOTABILITY. Decompressions occur all the time. Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if:

The accident was fatal to humans; or
The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

This incident does not comply with the above requirements. Thus, I strongly agree for deletion.Tafeax (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The plane (which is still in service along the same route [4]) managed to get a day or two of media coverage for making an emergency landing in which no one was injured. The plane is not notable enough for an article and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a bad day at the office and not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Not notable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoboyvdlp (talk • contribs) 13:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:SNOW: no deaths, no serious injuries. Loss of cabin pressure is sort of common (apologies to those who have fear of flying). Bearian (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable aviation incident....William 14:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate#Berlin_and_Kay. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of colors in various languages[edit]

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

This is listcruft. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really don't see the point. It's not something one looks up in an encyclopædia. ubiquity (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. —Swpb^talk 20:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. A better fit would be Wiktionary for this listcruft. Probably not though. Unencyclopedic to the point of being a bad article idea. James1011R (talk, contribs) 01:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete If you have List of numbers in various languages, why do you want to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania (talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't because that has been an established article, but it'd do better at Wiktionary. James1011R (talk, contribs) 05:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Please, no! I made it. T_T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8420:C000:3197:4A71:39E6:20B6 (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply You didn't create that article, 2A02:(hexadecimal junk). Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania did. James1011R (talk, contribs) 06:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Please, no! If you delete it, I'll be very sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania (talk • contribs) 09:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic is quite notable — see Psychology of Language; Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution or Color and Meaning: Art, Science, and Symbolism. The table makes a good appendix to our article color term and so should either merged there or just left as is. Andrew D. (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: interesting perhaps, but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.– Gilliam (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to color term as a reasonable compromise. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a universal translation dictionary. Carrite (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopaedic content Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This list is nice and I may copy the source to my personal sandbox, but for now, Delete as Colorcruft. DodgerOfZion (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and extend at color term or, perhaps better, Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate#Berlin_and_Kay The value of doing so is probably not quite as apparent as it would be if the table would, as keeping or merging would allow, the table be expanded to include languages with fewer color terms. The colors listed are more or less those categorized by the Berlin/Kay hypothesis, and such a table, actually showing which languages lack some of the more nuanced color terms and which don't would be a signficant aid in understanding the best known theory of how color terms evolved. The current table, focusing as it does on quote fully-evolved unquote languages, doesn't really cut to the chase, but a table aimed at helping explain the Berlin/hypothesis would be a valid target for this search term, and would be a table which could evolve pretty directly from the material here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PKWARE, Inc.[edit]

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

PKWARE is the creator of the PKZIP compression software. PKZIP may be notable, but PKWARE fails to meet our strict inclusion criteria.

Our PKWARE article was created in early 2010 by User:Argruber, a COI single-purpose account probably belonging to a paid editor. It contained atrocious copy such as this: "PKWARE provides data-centric security solutions [...] and is known for its data compression and file management solutions." For one full year, nobody dared remove the "new unreviewed article" tag. I don't know why User:Banej removed the tag a year later; maybe s/he forgot to check for COIs.

Just because PKZIP is notable doesn't mean that PKWARE should be considered notable. WP:PRODUCT says: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result."

The company has been around for a good long time: for about three decades. Still, it's quite small. It only has about 100 employees. And, more importantly, I looked through the first three pages of Google News results. I saw some local/special-interest coverage (which doesn't count towards notability), and at least a couple of press releases, but nothing which convinced me that the company meets our inclusion criteria.

Years of experience have shown that, even if you clean up an article about a non-notable company, it often attracts new paid editors after the clean-up. Paid editors are persistent, and often can win any edit war. It's better to instead delete all articles about non-notable companies.

Please delete. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a bit promotional, but that can be fixed easily enough. It's tricky to locate sources completely distinct from pkzip, their most famous product, but there's enough coverage to make them notable: PC Mag, PC Mag, PC Mag (yes, again), Infoworld, Infoworld, this book, Computergram International, Knight-Ridder. They also got some coverage from local sources in Milwaukee: [5], [6]. Although these articles often do discuss pkzip, they also discuss PKWARE itself, such as the litigation between them and SEA Inc. Besides that, I will say that PKWARE is a historically important company in the history of computing. They may not have the same name recognition and importance as their contemporaries (such as Microsoft, IBM, and Apple), but their legacy can not be swept away as no longer relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a company I've heard or read a lot about recently but there was plenty of coverage 'back in the day', and I agree with NinjaRobotPirate - the company has real world historical importance, and since we can source the article I see no reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The RS coverage is significant. Vrac (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant RS coverage per NinajRobotPirate. Royal broil 01:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin DB10[edit]

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

As a prop for a film, this car will not be going into construction, save for ten stunt versions used for the film. Not notable enough for its own page. A PROD was used and subsequently removed, leading to the AfD. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get a second !vote - being the nominator is an automatic delete. ansh666 20:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As of I've already stated on the talk page, the Aston Martin DB10 is more than just a prop, it represents the start of a new design direction for AM. This makes it similar to other concept cars that do not make production such as the Aston Martin CC100 and Aston Martin Bulldog. Also other movie prop cars, such as the Audi RSQ and Lexus 2054 also have pages dedicated to them. Regards, Hennelly14 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stated, but with no evidence. You've added it to the lead, but there are no supporting citations. - SchroCat (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation on the article page, it is a link to an article on Autocar concerning the car."New Aston Martin DB10 is James Bond's new car for 2015 Spectre film". I think it's the eighth paragraph; "Celebrating the great British brand’s half century with Bond, which started with the iconic DB5, the DB10 gives a glimpse to the future design direction for the next generation of Aston Martins." - Hennelly14 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not a concept car. As the citation you have provided makes quite clear, it's a new look, nothing more. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it is a concept car it is however similar to one. It will likely influence Aston Martins new range of cars. Like how the Audi RSQ influenced the Audi R8. Hennelly14 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need a whole article for a changed look? Not good enough. When the new look comes into being in the next car it'll go down well in there, but not on its own. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. Indeed, we have quite a lot already: Category:Concept automobiles

"A concept vehicle, show vehicle and a prototype is a car made to showcase new styling and/or new technology"
— Wikipedia, Concept car

Cloverleaf II (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be the lamest set of articles we have. Minor style changes for a prop (where the info already exists) that may or may not be used in a future car (where half the info should go). This is no more than a WP:CONTENTFORK. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making standalone articles for "concept cars" that merely prefigure production vehicles is content forking. On the other hand stylistic research vehicles are undeniably noteworthy and deserve a Wikipedia article. - Cloverleaf II (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DB10 is far more than a minor style change. The Aston Martin DB9 to DBS is minor style change, this however is a significant change in Aston's design language. Hennelly14 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, also I've just read an article concerning the car. It appears as if it is based on the V8 Vantage. Perhaps this page should be added to it and the DB10 page should redirect to either Spectre or the V8 Vantage? Hennelly14 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per nom. It's nonsensical having an article about something that doesn't, or in this case not likely to, exist. Fine, if it was something like the Sinclair C5, notable for its flawed design and disastrous sales figures which, in turn, made it very famous, then I could support it on those grounds. But for something which is little more than a prop? No, I don't think so. Cassianto ^talk 15:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: most recent concept cars have a page or a section of another page here at WIkipedia. Production numbers are not the only means of determining notability. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except this isn't a concept car. It's a new look, not a new concept. "or a section of another page"? Yep: that is where this stub should be, not on its own page. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many concepts/smaller production cars have pages that are only stubs such as the pages I have mentioned above. Also in time when more details are released about the car new information will be added to the page. Hennelly14 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither a concept car nor a production car. At the moment, it is a prop. Cassianto ^talk 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Many concepts": it is not a concept. It's a slight change in design. Most of this goes into the Spectre article, the remainder id background for when they do come up with something, but a design tweak with no spec chages? that's not good enough for a article. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's an article about a work of art produced by a main-stream luxury sports car company. That it was made as part of a marketing exercise to be used exclusively in a James Bond film does not detract from that, in fact that enhances its notability. Because it will be used in a Bond film it has received much wider worldwide media coverage than it would have received had it only been another Aston Martin concept car. Do a google search for it and you can read about it for hours. One-eyed Jim (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been an editor here for a total of five days, and limited your activities to a handful of pages, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with a few of the policies and guidelines we have relating to articles. A. It's not a concept car; B. It's not a work of art; C. WP:NOTADVERTISING says we are careful in promotions (we are not Aston Martin's ad agency); D; the limited material on the car is best placed elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why:

does it have to be a concept car?
do you say it isn't a work of art - a designer and his team has spent months perfecting its form?
can't we have an article about this, but we do we have articles about countless other marketing initiatives those in the Category:Television commercials, for example?

This car has already received more publicity, and will become more famous, than many of the human actors who appear in the film. One-eyed Jim (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above, learn the policies. When you're done with your WP:CRYSTALBALL, can the rest of us borrow it? Until we can, possible future performance isn't any basis for an article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or are you having trouble understanding it? What has possible future performance got to do with its current notability? It is on front of all the UK car mags today and on all the news websites. It is ALREADY notable in its own right. You (no, not even you) can put that genie back in the bottle.

See: EVO, Auto Express, Autocar, CAR, Top Gear, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Time, The Guardian], BBC News as just a few of the sources covering this new car.

And I didn't find anything in the policies declaring that only concept cars are allowed or that DB10 is not a work of art. So please support your assertions on those, or retract them. One-eyed Jim (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try and remain WP:CIVIL and not insult others: it's all too easy for me to up the stakes and start insulting you back, which doesn't help anyone. Sources saying something exists doesn't mean it automatically has an article here. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is one you should read (and you should probably read the rest of WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT while you're there. At present (which is what we base articles on), there is nothing more to say than Aston, slightly different design, Bond film.... that's it. It's not enough for its own article, as iall the info is pretty much in the Spectre article already (making this a content fork, rather than anything useful). Most Bond props don't have their own article, unless they gain some form of notbility, which is missing here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that to suggest that a user is behaving uncivilly, and with no evidence, as an excuse to avoid talking to the pertinent points raised, is extremely uncivil. None of the links you give (even those that work) raise any relevant reason why the article on the DB10 should not be kept. It ticks all the boxes admirably. Read the links I gave and you'll see why. One-eyed Jim (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say "Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or are you having trouble understanding it?" is uncivil: desist. I have read the links, which repeat the same scant information. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: certainly looks like a concept car to me (sometimes the 'concept' is simply the styling of the body). Stepho talk 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge this information into the Goldfinger article, if it is of interest there, and/or into any relevant Aston Martin articles. It should not have its own article; rather, it is information that is relevant to AM design history and possibly to the film production discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to Aston Martin, is a bespoke car and 10 units will be made, so it is a real car. http://www.astonmartin.com/en/live/news/2014/12/04/built-for-bond-aston-martin-debuts-unique-car-for-spectre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.28.13.206 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Aston Martin will not invest millions of pounds into producing just 10 cars. They will be homologised so they can participate in some kind of motor sport I should think. The ramifications of using a "DB10" concept car in the new Bond will inevitably be that it will go into production if enough interest is generated. That is not the case at the moment. Cassianto ^talk 19:37, 11 December 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 December 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the stack of significant coverage in reliable sources provided above by One-eyed Jim. These sources mean the subject of the article meets the general notability guideline; all else is gravy. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: even a cursory search reveals a plentiful supply of reliable sources discussing this car. So, despite the manufacturer's stated small production numbers, and contrary to the nominator's opinion, I believe this to be an eminently notable car. TwoWayStreet (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now into Spectre (2015 film); I don't think that it has any coverage independent of the film itself at the moment, but if it does have substantial standalone coverage in the future it can be spun back out. ansh666 20:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the motoring press majors on the cars styling and technical details, and the likely cues that will be carried into future production models, with only a passing mention of the film itself. TwoWayStreet (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for not reading carefully. I guess keep, then. ansh666 04:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the meantime: It seems, as there will be 10 models produced, that it will be a limited production vehicle. To address the claims that we should merge this, which worked for the Lamborghini Veneno, a limited production variant of the Aventador: We could merge, but if the car ends up being a pivotal point in Aston Martin's design, like they say, we should make it a standalone article. However, the car was just revealed not too long ago, so we may want to revisit this when we have more information. Imitch5 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - concepts, limited editions and even one-offs can be notable if they've been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This one has been. Not much else to say about it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. As Stalwart says, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources makes this notable, even if it turns out to be a pure one-shot design never leads to another production car. Even if it were ultimately concluded that this was really nothing more than a tricked-up V8 Vantage, that should still result, at minimum, in a merge of the content here to that page, not a deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like snow but let's make sure. In the first place, this should never have been brought to AFD as the idea that this should be a red link seems absurd - see Aston Martin DB1, Aston Martin DB2, &c. Secondly, the topic already has great notability, being covered by mainstream media such as the BBC in detail. Thirdly, the fact that it will have a small production run is irrelevant as this is normal for such exclusive supercars and, in any case, we routinely have articles for one-off designs such as the Jaguar XJR-17. The only problem I'm seeing with the article is that it doesn't yet tell us what we really want to know — will it have an ejector seat? :) Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether it is going to be used a film, this is clearly a concept car, created by the design department of a major automotive company, not a mere prop. AM says "the DB10 gives a glimpse to the future design direction for the next generation of Aston Martins." This is a textbook definition of the function of a concept car. The comparison with the Audi RSQ is very apt, and I don't see any discussion like this on the RSQ's page.El monty (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As it is an upcoming model, it is worth saying that not enough sources / information is available to best describe it - I'd say wait until they come out or wait six months or so and if it doesn't improve re-AFD it. aycliffe^talk 14:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Rafferty[edit]

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

Alleged to be CSD A7 eligible, but the article looks to assert just enough notability that I'd feel better with an afd for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 17:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 17:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find coverage of him or reliable sources to confirm claims made in the article. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikicology (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymie Scotto & Associates[edit]

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

Out of the sources provided, all of the ones I have checked were press releases, brief mentions and non-RS'. The leading trade magazine, PRWeek, has no search results for them except for this blurb. Promotional article on non-notable PR firm, far from attaining the two in-depth profile stories outlined at WP:CORP. CorporateM (Talk) 15:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not exactly spam, but I don't see how this is anything more than another very run of the mill public relations company. The cites given are to YouTube, other social media, and brief standard listings on the website for Information Week, as well as their own press releases, self-generated content (Market Wired on Yahoo), and web page; none of them are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any in-depth reliable sources on this firm and the article as it stands is almost entirely promotional. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Deb as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythgm, an abode[edit]

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

Private coaching institute having no significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources doesn't merit a Wikipedia article and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied on several grounds - non-notability, promotion, and it's also at a wrongly-spelled title, perhaps suggesting that it isn't really the ideal place to go to learn English. Deb (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Two (series)[edit]

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

I feel like this doesn't qualify to have it's own page. Each game has it's own page and I don't see the point of having this as a "series" page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep There are at least a couple of articles about the series as a whole ([7], [8]) but nothing that couldn't be covered in individual games' articles. Three games doth not a series make. Sam Walton (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to "other stuff" but there's a LOT of three game series articles, and even some two game series. This one is definitely in poor shape, but AFD isn't cleanup. I'd say that some of the content of the game articles could be moved to series, for example, the first game's article mentions a graphic novel and film that aren't directly part of the game itself. I also see there's a comic series from IDW [9]. A series article often is used to tie all these disparate items together. I'm not saying it should survive AFD, per say, just picking a few details out. -- ferret (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. I may be in favor of deleting these articles when there's only 2 games, or one title and an announced sequel...but three like this is definitely forming into a series. Seems like it could just be fixed up... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm slightly swayed after seeing the comic series, and I found that there's a possible movie in the works too. As such I'm a weak keep for now, a series article isn't hurting anyone I guess. Sam Walton (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NOTCLEANUP. With three game titles, and further media ventures as well, there's enough here for an article. Someone just needs to do a way better job at it... Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per my comments above ans Sergecross. -- ferret (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Ulysse Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as having only WP:ROUTINE coverage, not meeting WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Deadbeef 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing to keep per Tchaliburton. Deadbeef 21:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added information claims two time Canadian amateur champion. That would meet WP:NBOX although I would like to see a stronger reference backing that up.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that could be construed to pass is criterion 4, which lists this table as the go-to. I checked the light welterweight weight class every year back to 2007 and, wouldn't you know it, he's not there. Whatever he won to claim himself "Canadian Amateur Champion" doesn't appear to be incredibly sanctioned. Deadbeef 21:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was in those tournaments in '11 and '13 as claimed by the latter half of that sentence. Didn't win though. Still no idea what he could be referencing for the "Amateur Championship" thing. Deadbeef 21:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Junior - which would not meet WP:NBOX - either way the claim has to be clarified.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It says "He also participated in two world amateur championship tournaments in 2011 and 2013. He reached the quarter-final the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi." Wouldn't this qualify him for WP:NBOX #4 (represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament)? Tchaliburton (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone contradicts my understanding of WP:NBOX my view is keep. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Twice fought at world amateur championships and at Commonwealth games. Therefore meets WP:NBOX #4 "have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament." Also, did a quick Google search and came up with these references [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15], [16], [17], and [18]. Looks like he meets WP:GNG anyways. RonSigPi (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article certainly needs some improvement, but Tchaliburton is correct that the Commonwealth Games do satisfy NBOX. Flag for improvement but keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure participation in the Commonwealth games (not medalling) does meet WP:NBOX but the AIBI does.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person doesn't have to medal at an international multisport competition (Olympics, Pan Ams, Commonwealths, etc.) to qualify for a Wikipedia article — they merely have to be reliably sourceable as having competed in it regardless of how they finished in the standings. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I see nothing that says everyone who competes at the Commonwealth or Pan-Am games is inherently notable. There is such a stipulation for the Olympic games.

Keep I added his AIBA results (and sources) to the article. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. both. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bell (North Carolina politician)[edit]

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

Being the mayor of Elizabeth City (pop. 18K) is not sufficient for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the following also seems to base most or all of its claim to notability on the same office:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both No coverage of non-notable mayors of a small town. I have already transferred any useful information to Elizabeth City's article. Tiller54 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fails to clear the high bar we have set for politicians, which calls for election to a national assembly or major office. For me the automatic notability cut-off would be mayorship of a city of about 100,000 people. Your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebekonye[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub about a nigerian surename with no indication of WP:Notability Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly even Speedy Delete). No evidence of notability. Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no evidence of notability. A quick search shows that nobody exceptionally notable has the name, and there seem to be no reliable sources whatsoever. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, no sources, no Wikipedia articles with anyone of that name, so as such I don't see how the article is useful to readers. Additionally, there are no hits on Google Books or News, which would indicate that the near-to-mid-term usefulness of this article is also highly questionable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WPASR j⚛e decker ^talk 03:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FreeLife[edit]

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

Article is heavily reliant on Earl Mindell press. Other press seems to be marketing or quick mentions DerbieRover (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My opinion is that it's important to provide the facts about an existing company and its products, however dubious both are, and to maintain an unbiased article about Freelife on Wikipedia. We can't delete an article because we don't like the company or feel its products are a scam. To me, the matter of Mindell's outing as a fraud has occurred publicly and is stated clearly. Apparently -- at least from current company press -- he has not been associated with the company for several years. I've participated in the editing of this article for > 5 years, and don't perceive now there is blatant marketing or misstated, undemonstrated health effects, as there once was. --Zefr (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies on material that is obviously Multi level marketing propaganda. Thye have no real press since Mindell and that was almost ten years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santafesoul (talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 December 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 00:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's sufficient coverage to warrant an article. Notability is not temporary, so a lack of ongoing coverage is immaterial. TheBlueCanoe 21:35, 7 December 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, Michig (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Blackpool tramway tram stops. I am taking it on trust that Thryduulf is going to create this page in mainspace in due course. SpinningSpark 22:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bispham tram stop (Blackpool)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of tram stops. This fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because which are part of the same tram network and fail notability criteria:

Tchaliburton (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individually they lack notability, collectively they add nothing to Blackpool tramway (CSD A10) Bazj (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No denying it Blackpool is a popular area for tourists & whatnot but at the end of the day we're not a directory of bus/tram stops, My best suggestion would be to add them perhaps on Wikivoyage ..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect all to a List of Blackpool tramway tram stops (or similar title) which can contain the location, routes, area and notable places each stop serves (if any) - all of which is perfectly compatible with Wikipedia's gazetteer function. Any individual stop can be spun out to a separate article if there are sufficient sources to write an encyclopaedic article about them or that can be included in article about the area served (compare e.g. Station Street tram stop and Old Market Square tram stop in Nottingham). Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've left messages advertising this discussion at Talk:Blackpool tramway and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Trams. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, Blackpool Tramway is amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.44.119 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blackpool tramway unless sources can be found which show how an individual stop is in some way different from the others along the route. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those of you suggesting we merge it into Blackpool tramway, what content are you proposing we merge? Blackpool tramway already has a map listing the stops, I don't know what else would be of value. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Changed to Neutral without prejudice for recreation properly per response below.- These are in fact light rail stations along a major and historic light rail system, just in the same way Oldham King Street Metrolink station is a light rail/tram station on the Manchester Metrolink or Judah and 19th Avenue is a station on the N Judah line of the San Francisco Muni Metro. The community wisely decided years ago that all train stations are notable. This relieves editors of the burden of fleshing out the detailed notability of the tens of thousands of rail stations throughout the world when time and resources should be better spent creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones. I think if these newly created articles were as detailed and formatted as the existing article examples mentioned here, they would not have been nominated for AfD. It's simply an example of the enthusiasm of a new editor wanting to create multiple articles of notable topics without understanding the psyche of new article patrollers. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tram stop, not a train station. There no inherent notability for tram stops and it does not meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The affectation of the local word "tram" for light rail is just that, an affectation. The same exact type of light-rail systems are used all over the world and are properly called "rail." Examples are the identical systems of Seattle's Link Light Rail Tacoma Link or Salt Lake City's TRAX (light rail). As a matter of fact, a more pointent example is the Gold Coast Light Rail which uses the Flexity 2, the exact same light-rail rolling stock that the Blackpool "tramway" uses. Calling it "tram" as opposed to it's common "rail" is simply a local semantic.--Oakshade (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can call it a palace if you want, it's still not notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never called "it" a "palace", just that they are rail stations. What I will say is this; The articles were clearly just created by a newbie without regard to Wikiformatting and rail station conventions .(I've somewhat Wikified a couple of them.) Due to their bad shape, I wouldn't be opposed to them being deleted without prejudice to re-create to more standard rail station articles. --Oakshade (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this comes across arsey but ... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Just because other tram/train stations exist doesn't mean these should too.... Also I've seen it more than once where someone's created an article and 10mins later it's ended up at AFD so again not really a reason to delete IMHO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay doesn't trump long-standing WP:CONSENSUS, not to mention WP:COMMONSENSE in which the community consensus has long abided by when it comes to rail stations. There are always exceptions to guidelines when common sense is needed and this is one of them.--Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown any evidence of a previous consensus on tram stops. Also, WP:Consensus Can Change. I'm not sure how you think WP:COMMONSENSE applies, but to me common sense says we shouldn't have articles on non-notable subjects. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to prove a negative as consensus has always kept proper light rail/tram articles. There is no "evidence" consensus has changed - A limited number of editors in one AfD of badly made articles is not consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. These are equivalent to bus stops rather than rail stations.Charles (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that they are equivalent to either - they generally fall between the two. The long-term nature of tram stops and the necessary infrastructure mean that they are always going to be useful search terms so we shouldn't be leaving redlinks, hence my recommending merging and redirecting to a list. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are some of the most pointless articles I have ever seen. They will always be stubs and probably outdated. This is light rail not "proper railway" stations.Charles (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not arguing for keeping them as articles. I'm arguing for redirecting them to a list. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list already, with a map, at Blackpool tramway. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but read my !vote above where I explain what a full list of stops can and should have. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. I could see it potentially being a part of the main article. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would rather overwhelm the main article, given there are 36 stations on the current route and more to come if the proposals are built. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tchaliburton, Oakshade, and Lamberhurst: I've started a list that these could be merged to at Draft:List of Blackpool tramway tram stops. I've only had time to do the first three stations so far, but I intend to continue working on it (and anyone else is welcome to contribute too of course!). Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is notable on its own. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 00:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The system itself is undoubtedly notable, and so a list of stations/stops on the system needs only to be verifiable to be included as it's part of Wikipedia's gazetteer function. There would be no question of this were it a section of the main article, and the only reason it isn't is for reasons of space. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine it will be large enough to qualify for spinning off based on WP:SIZERULE. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would think that. The article is already pretty long and there are ~36 current stops, plus those on disused and future routes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the list will be deleted as non-notable in due course just as lists of bus routes generally are.Charles (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of bus routes get deleted because bus routes are inherently transient and they can and do change at the drop of a hat. Tram stops are not at all transient because trams run on fixed routes and serve stops that typically have some associated infrastructure that means they can't be changed at the drop of a hat - some of the stops in this list are over 100 years old. The two are not the same. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think that? Look at WP:SIZERULE.T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that too. The article is currently in the "may need to be divided" range and after the addition of the tram stops list would be firmly in the "probably should be divided" category. It is also common practice to spin out long lists from prose articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable per nom. Could also be worth looking at other similar tram stop articles such as those recently created for the Nottingham Express Transit to see if a similar approach can be taken. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The NET articles are a complete mix of stubs about small tram stops, articles about the stop and what it serves, redirects to articles about what the stop serves where the stop is mentioned, and in the case of at least Station Street tram stop a non-stub article about the stop (which in that case is equivalent to a railway station in terms of infrastructure). A batch nomination for all those stops would therefore be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Infrastructure is not a relevant condition when assessing notability. What is required per WP:NRV is "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources". That is not the case with the majority (if not all) of these articles, including Station Street. Serious thought needs to be given whether articles such as, for example, Sandilands tram stop are really notable, given that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge by line 'These are reasonably permanent, though normally without the structure of train stations, but unless more can be said there is no need of individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Markeith Cummings[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and does not have the third party references to satisfy WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 16:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Played in Philippine Basketball Association which I think falls under "or a similar major professional sports league" for WP:NHOOPS.RonSigPi (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the PBA counts as a major league. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article cites multiple sources that are primarily about Cummings ([19], [20], [21], etc). Playing in the PBA and NBA D-League makes for a respectable hoops resume. One could make a case that the PBA belongs in WP:NBASKETBALL, since basketball is almost a religion in the Philippines and the league gets a great deal of media attention. Zagalejo^^^ 21:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Zagalejo's reasoning. Meets GNG, even if by a hair. Rikster2 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there anywhere that explains what is meant by "similar major professional sports league"? I assumed that PBA wouldn't qualify as it's a much lower caliber. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- no, there isn't. Efforts to replace it with more specific leagues have been stymied so it has been kept. But the PBA is a much lower caliber than what? Sure, the NBA but you could argue it's similar to the Australian NBL. But some of us are arguing he meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UniversiTV[edit]

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

Lack of notability that may fail WP:NME; few or no reliable sources covering the subject. Theenjay36 (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Theenjay36 (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Theenjay36 (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator's analysis. This is the first I've heard of the channel. I mean, eight years on there's only two cable operators running it? It may be for all I know, a 700 Club Asia geared for college students. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retarget~~ to ZOE Broadcasting Network, its parent network. The mentions that I found online is usually due to a typo of "university"--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's not a good idea. For me, UniversiTV was never owned by ZOE but was just a blocktimer on the latter's channel 33. Theenjay36 (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah I see, Delete then. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarker Protick[edit]

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

No enough source. Only a single non notable award and Selected to participate Joop Swart Masterclass do not evidently signifiy the subject. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 07:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No strong evidence of notability Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Week keep. ~~per nom.~~ – nafSadh did say 18:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zayeem presented reliable sources. – nafSadh did say 09:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, the subject seems to be a rising star in Bangladeshi photography, [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Still early in his career, but he meets several of the criteria for photographers -- numerous group exhibitions, in-depth coverage in media (I added one from National Geographic website), book of his work published. If any of the shows were solo shows that would be another plus. So it's early, but I think he clears the bar. The article itself could use some work. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of the news coverage found by Kmzayeem. He seems to meet WP:GNG (though exhibiting work and having solo shows is not a qualifying criteria of notability, it is something photographers and artists do as part of their 'job'). Sionk (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Momo Mustafa[edit]

Momo Mustafa is a lifestyle photographer from Bangladesh.Momo Mustafa is passionate about traveling and photography. She wants to share the beauty & diversity of the world she has seen with others, through her photography. She wonders about capturing those breathtaking moments for eternity to spread among all, She have taken A basic course from Chanchal Mahmood Photography and complete an advance and diploma course of photography from Prism. Currently She doing another diploma from South Asian Media Academy (Pathshala). Her photographs have been published in national Newspaper , posters and calendars, …ETC.She also participated in more than 40 exhibitions globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.152.110.130 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The sources do not provides enough significance of the subject. All of the sources just includes the photographer's name in a list or gallery. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 07:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 16:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 16:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG. – nafSadh did say 18:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She may be "emerging". If so, let us wait until she has emerged. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject does not meet WP:BASIC, per several source searches. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selling vegetables online[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling essay that appears to have been written by a student as part of an assignment at Kyoto University overseen by User:Kyodaiteeter. Unfortunately, few have taken the time to read or digest the guidelines concerning basic requirements for Wikipedia articles, requiring other editors to clear up the mess afterwards. --DAJF (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A clear essay that does not contain any encyclopedic content. BenLinus 1214^talk 21:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Squash this immediately per NOTESSAY. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop hill[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GEOLAND - Possible merge with main Dunlop article Diagear (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find at least two sources (1 and 2), both of which describe the hill, the castle on it and some of the geographical features. There are more sources beyond that. Should be easy enough to properly reference. The fact that they haven't been added to the article is no reason to delete. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating a geographical feature for deletion an hour after the article was created and without trying to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is a bad idea at the best of times. But citing WP:GEOLAND (which is a question of whether sources exist for named geographical features) when sources clearly exist is a failure of WP:BEFORE and not the way to conduct new page patrols. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: WP:GEOLAND was clearly a mistag. Diagear (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination was a mistake and represents a failure to conduct a basic Google search per WP:BEFORE. Care to withdraw it? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll like to withdraw deletion and take your advise on board on future nominations. thanks Diagear (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha Tiwari[edit]

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

Close paraphrase of [27]. Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC - the source presented reads like a vanity piece and in any case does not appear to meet our standard for significant coverage. VQuakr (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been speedy deleted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -There are few passing mentions. Not enough coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to make subject worthy of inclusion on encyclopedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that the article has been renamed to Ferguson Action. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson October[edit]

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

Does not actually appear to be an group of any kind. Of the sources used that mention "Ferguson October" all of them refer to it as an event, not a movement or group. All of them refer to it also as just part of the larger ongoing protests about the shooting. Redirect to one of the relevant articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Hmmmm.... I don't know. At first glance I'm seeing a couple mid to high quality RS (e.g. [28], [29]) that do give it direct coverage and actually call it a movement. Maybe what we want here is a rename/move/merge rather than a delete? NickCT (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would completely support a merge into one of the articles about the shooting itself, Ferguson unrest or a hypothetical Reactions to the shooting of Michael Brown Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is this related to firearms?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been removed from the delsort page, so I took the note out. Cheers, ansh666 20:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article meets WP:GNG criteria. Needs expansion, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to 2014 civil rights protests in the United States. Clearly meets WP:GNG, we need a parent article for all of these ongoing events, I would recommend a re-name though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would this differ from 2014 Ferguson unrest? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are nationwide protests over two different events, it has gone beyond Ferguson and now includes Eric Garner. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to 2014 Ferguson unrest. This is part of a larger series of events. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to 2014 Ferguson unrest for me as well. --IJBall (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename I agree with the idea of renaming it to 2014 Civil Rights Protests in the United States. I further agree that it meets WP:GNG. It certainly falls outside the scope of the unrest in Ferguson. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another non-notable "organization" that has sprung up in the wake of the Shooting of Michael Brown. These groups (and I use the term generously) get a little incidental coverage because Fergusen and other protest areas are swarming with reporters looking for a story and someone to quote. Also see Hands Up United, also up for deletion. A few others exist, but as far as I know, no one has made articles for them... yet. At best, merge all these sundry names into a section of 2014 Ferguson unrest. If any of them ever become notable in their own right after this event dies down, then they can be revisited. – JBarta (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Same--98.167.190.29 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is about an organized social movement, not a group, thus the applicable notability guideline is WP:GNG. Several major media sources have reported specifically about the movement in non-trival coverage including Huffington Post, ABC News, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, MSNBC, Essence Magazine, The New Yorker, Fox News, International Business Times, and Newsweek. I'm gobsmacked that this article was nominated for AfD as it shows a startling disregard for WP:BEFORE. Editors commenting that the article should be renamed to 2014 Civil Rights Protests in the United States should understand that these are related, but completely different subjects, much in the way that Kent State shootings is different than Protests against the Vietnam War. This subject easily stands on it's own as meriting an independent article, per WP:SIGCOV.- Mr X 02:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, the difference between a "group" and an "organized social movement" is paper thin. Here are two sources(1,2) referring to it as a group. Surely you could reply with sources calling it a movement. That's the point... group, organization, social movement, action committee or whatever, this is one of many entities that have sprung up since the protest started and all are clamoring to be heard. Most (if not all) have received some level of coverage in the news simply because this is a currently hot story. Does that make them all notable? Is this one more notable than the others? – JBarta (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were a group, which it's not, it would still be notable by a country mile. Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, which Ferguson October has had, in abundance.- Mr X 04:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is also tempered by WP:NTEMP... "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability" – JBarta (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The world has now seen 4+ months of consistent coverage. Is that considered brief in your opinion? Interesting, if so. Hmlarson (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that several groups have been making it into the news since this all started and in the context of everything above, yes it's brief. A better solution is a section in the unrest article describing this flurry of groups and what their statements, activities and demands are (which shouldn't take too long because they're all pretty much the same) mention a few of the more notable ones by name including some of the activities they took part in or organized. That way all these groups can get mentioned in Wikipedia without creating a separate article for each. – JBarta (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* but rename (and kind of repurpose) to 2014 civil rights protests in the United States. Also support redirecting to 2014 Ferguson Unrest but not as much as the former. It seems like the Ferguson October thing will also connect to the more recent deaths and there probably should be a place to gather all of it (and the Ferguson article is getting to be longer and longer, maybe relevant parts should fork and become a separate article). — kikichugirl ^inquire 09:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets GNB although Ferguson action seems like a social movement rather than a organized group considering the sources like 1, 2 and 3. So, the title would better change to sth else showing this difference. Mhhossein (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (and how did it take so long for someone to mention that word for this topic?). We're not going to delete an article because someone else copied from it, and the consensus is that's mostly what's happened here. Any actual copyvio problems can be taken care by less drastic means. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine[edit]

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

Severe copyright violation. Copyvios report returns:

Copyvios results show at least a 99.5% copyright violation
Site	Percent violation	direct compare link
http://www.lycaeum.org/wiki/Cocaine	99.5%	Compare
http://www.wewantsexualfreedom.com/?p=40139	99.4%	Compare
http://www.uatests.com/drug-information/cocaine.php	99.2%	Compare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gIpkLzT2yg	72.9%	Compare
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/drug-that-spans-the-ages-the-history-of-cocaine-468286.html	60.7%	Compare
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2086.html	46.5%	Compare
http://www.havocscope.com/tag/cocaine/	45.9%	Compare
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10832384	45.4%	Compare
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/appsych/chibps/cocaine	44.1%	Compare
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/appb.htm	43.5%	Compare
71 URLs with lower confidence hidden.		Show them.

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Aren't those websites using text from Wikipedia, not the other way around? Gnome de plume (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. GraniteSand (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt that https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2086.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10832384 or http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/appb.htm are is quoting Wikipedia. If all of the sources were quoting Wikipedia (they're not, we're quoting them), then we'd have an unsourced article which implies a lack of notability and as such is eligible for deletion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - All under 50% on a topic type which lends itself to duplicate language across sources. Two of those sources are also fair use, they're not copyrighted. The third is not a BBC article and it is pulling substantial material from other sources. The article on Cocaine is not going to be delted, you're wasting people's time and abusing process to make a point. If you have a problem with material in the topic then address it on the talk page. GraniteSand (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really, there are about 10 entries in the list above but the article has 139 references. So even if those were removed as being copies of this article rather than references, we'd still be left with about 129 secondary sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the BBC source is user generated which means people can (and probably did) copy content from here to there rather than the other way around. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for what is a confused attempt at making a point, trolling, or just an honest misunderstanding of how all of this works. GraniteSand (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yeah, quite a few of those look like Wikipedia mirrors with content copied from our article rather than the other way around. Any suggestion that any of those were published before ours? St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare pub dates but that incredibly tedious and, as much of it isn't even copyrighted and so much is user generated, there's really no point. GraniteSand (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't think this is going to be deleted, I think the nomination is a bit confused and AFD isn't for clean-up. But the issue has been raised now and we might as well address it if we can. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the venue, that conversation belongs on the article talk page. For the record, though, you can look for incremental or small changes to the wikipedia article and then compare it the web article. We had a similar situation over at the Navy SEALs article. GraniteSand (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disagree at all, just trying to avoid stubborn bureaucracy before this is SNOW closed (pun intended). St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the article is bad, how can the topic not be notable and worthy of an article here? Borock (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - An article is definitely needed. The drug is notable. Even if there is copyright violation, and it appears that other web sites have been copying Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia copying them (thus possibly violating Copyleft), the idea of deleting this article is absurd. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Have you asked/warned those who have violated Wikipedia:CV? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not possible. The talk page of the bot that copied the content is fully protected not to mention the bot is blocked. Conversion script (talk · contribs). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep So many other venues to correct and finesse this information exist before AfD should ever be pursued for an article like this. I'm feeling charitable tonight so I won't be serving WP:TROUT to the nominator, but I'm assuming the case here is the sources are copying from us. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I ran the copyvio tool against a few articles I wrote, and the results were a bit amusing. Besides the fact that at least one of the articles I've written has somehow ended up copypasted into someone's blog, any common phrase triggers a false positive. There are only so many ways to say, "The film stars Jack Nicholson." Eventually, you're going to get a copyvio false positive against Roger Ebert. I looked at the report for this article, and I think that's what we're seeing here: Wikipedia mirrors and false positives. Even if there were bulk copyvios, I can't imagine how deletion would be the solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first article I wrote on Wikipedia was on California copper artisan Dirk van Erp. A few years later, I saw a museum exhibit of his work, and about 60% of the biography was identical to my article. They copied me; I did not copy them. It seems much the same is going on here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hardly need another for a snowkeep, but yeah, then we'd have an unsourced article which implies a lack of notability and as such is eligible for deletion just seems like a misunderstanding of what we typically delete things for (among other things, an article being unsourced doesn't mean it's not notable, and there's a process of searching for sources assumed WP:BEFORE nominating. I'm all for removing copyrighted material on sight, though, so I can understand wanting to take drastic measures given a situation of ~99% copyvio. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this already as a misunderstanding of the proper use of the AfD process and/or a failure to properly apply WP:BEFORE. Being generous. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by WGN America[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Recently it's been a magnet for unsourced additions. Prior to nominating I requested input at the Television Wikiproject Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Listings, and the single reply supported deleting it. NE Ent 01:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only with a major reduction down solely to the network's original and WGN-TV-originated programming, removing syndicated dramas, sitcoms and movie block brandings. The issue with the IP adds (as it has been for eons) is 'fantasy TV vandals' trying to add their preferred sitcom/drama repeats to the article, and frankly that's of interest to few and outside of those doing deep searching back to its start in 1979, nigh unsourceable, where it's darned easier to reduce it just to original shows. Also, it's been one persistent IP that's been doing the vandalism here which has been blocked for two weeks (and will be undoubtedly re-blocked in two weeks and one minute from then); still a reduction may be better for all of our sanity. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a national television network. But the title of the article should be changed to reflect the exact scope of the list - List of original programs broadcast by WGN America or List of original and syndicated programs broadcast by WGN America, etc. The contributors to the article can decide its scope. Royal broil 13:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak per CSD A7 and WP:HOAX. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frostbet[edit]

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

I can't find one single citation of this company on the web. Fails both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. See also the concern previously expressed in the proposed deletion template that was eventually removed by the creator of the article. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 01:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. I highly recommend that discussion about ways to improve the article continue on its talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest known galaxies[edit]

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

poor references, incorrect information, extremely difficult to properly curate Parejkoj (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my rationale above, a list of "largest galaxies" is poorly defined--half light radius, extended stellar halo, ionized gas halo, neutral gas halo, radio emission?--and is very difficult to properly curate, given that astronomers don't typically think in these terms. This list contains several likely examples of citogenesis, like IC 1101, where most online citations probably came from Wikipedia's incorrect size claims. To properly manage this list would require quite a lot of digging around in research papers, including recomputing sizes from old measurements that used old cosmological parameters. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Fix Largest galaxies is a category that can get a lot of secondary sources. Maybe the list should start with the largest known galaxy and work downward. We will still need some criteria for the cutoff, but it is no more arbitrary than a list of largest cities.--TMD Talk Page. 01:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In an earlier discussion about this article, I've suggested that the cut-off be the typically top-100 listing, as though 100 is arbitrary, it is a widely used cut-off therefore is not something especially parochial to Wikipeida. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per TMDrew, this list while currently in a rather poor state right now could become a worthwhile article with changes. The concept of the article is sound as there are similar successful lists elsewhere such as list of largest known stars. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please offer some correct secondary sources for the largest known galaxy. All the secondary sources I've looked at claim IC 1101 as having that honor, many citing back to Wikipedia. It very likely isn't the largest known: it is certainly not larger than 1.5Mly by any measure, and not larger than ~360kly by the usual measure of galaxy size. That's why I think this is a perfect example of citogenesis: most secondary sources got their (incorrect) size number from Wikipedia itself! A similar case can be made for many other items on this list, e.g., NGC 262 does not have a 2.6Mly HI envelope, but rather ~600kly (using the ~10arcmin measurement from Morris & Wannier 1979). A critical point here is that one cannot just use the physical sizes from old papers (like Morris & Wannier's 200x300 kpc value), because old papers very likely use a different cosmology, and thus different distances, when calculating those physical values.

I'm not sure how I would go about identifying the largest galaxies in a robust manner. One might be able to make some prgress from either NED or the NASA/Sloan atlas, but I don't think you can search the former by size, and the latter doesn't go far enough out to catch enough objects. - Parejkoj (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Skyflubber has mentioned that he has a list of 300 galaxies that could be added to the list. If we can prompt him to provide the list he compiled, we can get on to fixing the article up. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and fix per the aboves; we can address the nom's concerns by having a list of largest galaxies by type as the first table/section/list on the list article, so that the largest by each criteria is listed. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pinging @SkyFlubbler: since he was mentioned. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "poor references, incorrect information" - not a valid reason for deletion. WP:SOFIXIT! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the article at the moment is not just unsourced, but massively inaccurate as well; most of the galaxies listed are nowhere near the largest, as shown at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 15. A completely inaccurate articles does Wikipedia more harm than no article, even on a notable topic, since such articles actively misinform readers on a subject, rather than simply not informing at all. WP:BLOWITUP seems to apply here, since I agree that a good list here would be a great asset, but currently it is in such bad shape that I feel there is no choice unless it can be improved in seven days. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Changing to keep based off of the IP's comment below and my implementation of the suggestion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick and dirty fix would be to remove the table entries below the "300 BCGs" row, and terminating the table there, with just the Milky Way for reference as anything smaller. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I might support that...let's see what others think here though about this suggestion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed as Keep but was reverted - It would've been nice if StringTheory11 asked me to revert ~~as opposed to disruptively reverting anyway!~~. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't, except in extremely rare cases, tell in half a day if an AfD will go one way or the other; it's not nearly enough time to get an accurate representation of all opinions on the subject, and four votes is also nowhere near enough to SNOW outside of rare cases, such as disruptive nominations. I should have notified you, though, and for that I apologize, but I do object to your language of "disruptively reverting". It is not disruptive to revert a premature close. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMHO I at the time saw it as a clear keep but perhaps I shouldn't have jumped the gun so quick there so I apologize for that, I know some people are adamant that there NAC closure are fine but I'm not - We all make mistakes and I'm always more than happy to revert myself and or relist :), BTW I apologize for the "disruptively reverting" comment - It's been a hectic day and the last thing I wanted is to be reverted , Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apology accepted; nobody's perfect. I'm glad we could come to an amicable conclusion here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, there has been a massive incorrect info in here. The 260 multimillion light year galaxies in my list has sizes measured through the old cosmological constant, that is, H₀ = 50 km/sec/Mpc value which is massively incorrect. I tried to recompute it using the value per Planck sattelite, H₀ = 67.80 ± 0.77 km/sec/Mpc, and now I've already recomputed 160 of them, and none actually reaches 1 Mly. In fact, none even reaches half of that, with largest being NGC 6872 at 350,000 light years.

If I recomputed all of them, I may say only less than 20 will reach 1 Mly, which is a big hectic. What I will say is that we still don't accurately know the exact mechanisms of a galaxy, given that they're poorly understood. Plus, what is our standard in determining the size of the galaxy? Is it the radio lobe, the stellar halo, the dark matter halo, or what? As far as I'm concerned, the Milky Way is twice the Andromeda's size, and possibly even five times, because the Milky Way has a million light year dark matter halo which is part of the galaxy itself.

I suggest to just keep this list because it's so inaccurate. But it must not be deleted because it's very important. Given the right time then we will put more precise info on there. It all just takes time. I will start another survey again. SkyFlubbler (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO. Do not delete. It is simply one one the most popular astronomy related lists. Plus, I made lots of improvements in it. Prejkoj, I've asked you this before and I'm gonna ask you again: Don't you think it is better to have the article even though there might be some inaccurate informations? (Answer: It is better to have the article) Tetra quark (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Safiel (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Miralle[edit]

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

Spam/Promo Page Seola (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Deletion

Much of the sources lead to 404 or do not mention the subject. The biography information is unsourced. It reads like an advertisement or resume - not a Wiki page. The top search results lead to his personal website or social media pages. There has been a years-long tag with citation issues, noted orphan page and hasn't been resolved. There is no discussion on the talk page of cleaning up references and I could not find any specifically to note achievements that are mentioned. Very little movement since page creation so the issues present on creation had no attempts at correction. Seola (talk) 07:02, 4 December 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 December 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep subject appears to be quite an accomplished photographer as can be seen by a news search for his name (literally thousands of photo credits in major publications). Unfortunately, this also makes it difficult to find quality sources about the subject as you have to sift thorugh all his photo credits. This is not an excuse for not finding such sources, just an explanation... Here are some good sources: [30] [31] (multiple good sources behind paywall, but can see a portion of article) [32] ... I'm sure I could find more with effort.

The awards are real, and also a good indication of notability: World Press Picture of the Year Int'l National Press Photographers Association Football HOF Graphis Prix de la Photographie and so on.

Yes the article needs improvement (and with luck I'll have some time to do so this week), but the subject is quite notable. AfD is not for cleanup. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch some time to pass to see what you can get and wait for other feedback from other editors. I don't believe, however, that mere catalog size alone should be enough to meet nobility. Additionally, the NYT is a reference to all winners of the year (of which, dozens win annually), so it's a bit of a duplication in the list, so to speak, in referring to the same event (x happened, here's the proof). The article consists of nothing but where the photographer has worked or sold photos to, with little verifiable evidence of such. As of now, I don't feel it falls in the merits of significant coverage, nor multiple reliable sources. I used PDN's headlines to try and pull articles from the web to avoid the paywall. I found a few, again referencing the same win, but in articles with the topic name and Miralle's name, his name didn't exist in the articles, so I'm unsure of where PDN has tagged his name to it. The last concern I'll bring up is comparitive to the current list of US photographers. The vast majority all have much, much more notability and a verifiable publishing list (James Balog) as an example. Seola (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of Miralle (or Balog), though my ignorance means little or nothing. Anyway, although Miralle isn't really a "sportsperson" as the latter term is generally used, he is a person whose noteworthiness -- if any, and I tend to think that yes there is some -- is related to sports. I've therefore added this to that delsort. ¶ Odd that you should make an approving mention of Balog in an AfD for an article that you allege "reads like an advertisement or resume": his article is littered with dubious material such as: With innovative methodology that combines time-lapse imagery with cutting-edge science [...] Balog paired chimpanzees with a diverse range of humans and photographed a series of provocative portraits. The conceptual artwork [...] (my emboldening). -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS Balog article now tweaked (but still largely a PR puff). -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully. The NY Times article was not used to argue for notability. It was used as proof of an award which you claimed could not be found. Why you picked it out and ignored the items I labeled as "good sources", I have no idea. (You did deceptively describe one of them - if you look at the PDN link, you can see the first three articles are clearly about Miralle. Why you chose to ignore those and focus on others others where he is incidentally mentioned, I have no idea. BTW, "Shooting from Left Field" is the cover article on that issue. A trade publication making their lead article about a person is a crystal clear indication the publication deems said person notable.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD may not be for cleanup, but as it is the article is certainly wretched. I've gone through it, clearing up some junk but adding almost nothing. Perhaps ThaddeusB would like to add to it the sources he's pointed to above. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfills the notability criteria for biographies as a demonstrably notable person in his field. Other provided rationale for listing at AfD are not part of the criteria for deletion. It is worth noting that at least one award Miralle claims to have be awarded on his website (National Headliner Award for SI in 2000) seems to be a typo; he actually won the award in 2001. His website should be treated with caution when being used as a source. GraniteSand (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some sections to the article which I hope makes it easier to see what is covered. I'm neutral on deletion. LaMona (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Phoenix Hutchinson[edit]

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

Seams like non notable person. Google News search returns no hits [33] and Google Books search returns 1 hit [34], but that is a book written by the article subject, not independent source. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, potential A7, maybe G11 (seeing as it's a borderline speedy might as well send it through AfD while it's here. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if someone else tagged it.) Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, et al. Deadbeef 10:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 4 December 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 00:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of encyclopedic notability. GraniteSand (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I turned the links into actual references, but did not find any additional references other than his book of poetry listed in a bibliography for the geographical area he writes about. [35]. I doubt if he meets notability standards, however. LaMona (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton H. Sheets[edit]

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

nn infomercial huckster-of the four links, the first is a link to the other 3; the second mentions his name as a one-off; the third goes into some depth; the fourth is a dead link-not substantial coverage Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton Sheets--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination reason is WP:ATTACK and should be edited for tone, but figure's influence has faded in most facets and they have no long-lasting notability, so deletion is appropriate without new and notable sources rolling in. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep Good sources have been found to assert the subject's notability by the editors below, and I'm convinced that it should stay now. Nate • (chatter) 04:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsubuffalo is mainly targeting this article because of an edit war he got into with me over another subject. This is just WP:BULLY. --Amaruca (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's not-I afd'd this before you started editwarring at a completely different article. But they both speak to your understanding of what belongs on Wikipedia and what does not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You expect me to believe that? Here's the deal on Carleton Sheets: He's an author and prominent lecturer who had a tremendous impact on the real estate market for better or for worse. The article needs to stay and be expounded on or at least be placed under his book title(s). WP:N --Amaruca (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did some minor editing. The article needs citations, and needs to link the available citations to the information in the article. I do think a reasonable number of third-party sources should be findable, and the one NYT article is substantial. He is known primarily as an example of late-night TV "get rich quick" advertisers, and he appears to be substantially well-known for that (a dying breed, as the Internet as taken over that role). I did add that he has had trouble with the Better Business Bureau, and more should be added both about his fans and his detractors. A list of his books and CDs (if not overly long) would enhance the article. LaMona (talk) 22:32, 11 December 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, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's somewhat of a novelty has-been but notability is not temporary and Sheets has received enough independent third party coverage coverage in the past to be considered notable according to the relevant guideline. I cleaned up some of the fluff and blatant promotional language in the article but it still needs serious attention. There's more than enough material to expand the article and link it out to others. GraniteSand (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 04:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kumar Lahoria[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I think you're right.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2013 Thane building collapse or delete. Nomination correct but we could add bits about his being killed to the event he was notable for. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the decision it to Merge, I would happily take care of that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, merge will lead WP:UNDUE in 2013 Thane building collapse as it is not directly related to the collapse and was killed a year earlier. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Extremely notable case. Reading Times of India coverage in article established notability under GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should have mentioned this earlier - I wrote the article, and so that's why I haven't lodged an official vote, but having the benefit of time for reflection: It does make sense to merge some additional information into the Thane Building Collapse article, since he's only notable in connection with the illegal building collapse. As Cutest Penguin said, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There are a number of articles, mostly Times of India, but that alone does not provide notability, per WP:GNG.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The case is definitely notable. But this isn't an article about either the building collapse or his murder. It's about the person himself. As such it's a pretty clear case of wp:VICTIM. Unless he's notable for something else the Wikipedia information about him should be covered under the pages for the various crimes. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it should be redirected so that a search on his name leads to the building collapse article. NOT deleted.ShulMaven (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per user Shulmaven. Clear case of notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 29 November 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 16:29, 4 December 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 December 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - To an early point, I get that the murder happened before the building collapse and should be its own article, rather than rolled into the related 2013 Thane building collapse article. I'm hearing that the murder case is notable, but the subject would not pass notability guidelines otherwise. What about renaming it Murder of Sunil Kumar Lahoria? --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur renaming to Murder of Sunil Kumar Lahoria will preserve useful, reliably sourced details of a the admiral justice seeking and consequent death of a hero who died in his attempt to build a functioning civil society for India.ShulMaven (talk) 02:59, 9 December 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 00:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Times of India coverage establishes notability. Rename if need be, but that's not relevant to deletion. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close. This is ultimately an article written to be a WP:SOAPBOX for a specific cause, complete with a "come to our facebook page" link at the bottom. I also note that despite the editor having been here for a while, their edits seem to be done predominantly as a way to promote specific things or to add things to articles that seem suspiciously like copyvio so a block looks imminent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit Genocide[edit]

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

I can't find any credible sources that use the term "Dalit Genocide." Furthermore, this is unreferenced and reads like a personal essay. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV, original research, no sources. Vrac (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears as though the creator of the article grabbed some statistics from http://www.overcomingviolence.org/en/resources/campaigns/women-against-violence/now-we-are-fearless/dalit-fact-sheet.html. - Location (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No Citations or sources. Questionable claims Diagear (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced allegations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -There might be some sort of /hidden/ sources helping one to write an encyclopedic article. But at this time as there appears to none in the existing article, and is written in the line of what Wikipedia is NOT, constituting some person's POV and OR, we are better off it. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - , POV, Unsourced, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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