Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 September	26 September >

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. The delete !voters fail to rebut the substantive arguments that notability is satisfied, and fail to advance a solid and consensus-supported policy argument that would rebut the presumption of inclusion. BLP1E would not be properly applied here, in part because it is not established that there is a single "event" at issue, and the subject herself has intentionally sought media attention. postdlf (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lindauer

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

Article was deleted at AfD, then brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to relist on AfD for a clean discussion. My involvement is purely administrative; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus at the previous AfD where it was established that, because the coverage is almost entirely about her arrest and trial, the intent of WP:BLP1E is met. Now that I have seen the article and had a chance to look at the sources, it is clear that to me that that view is correct. I also point out that the DRV was tainted by canvassing, badgering, and dishonesty by the DRV nominator and a strong case could have been made for endorsing the original close procedurally. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I also agree with commenters at the first AfD that WP:PERP seems to cover this precisely. Reyk _YO! 00:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERP reads that we can have an article when: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (emphasis mine) The rule is meant to give privacy to people charged with routine DUIs or shoplifting. This is not a private person needing protection, she has written an autobiography about their role and appears in media interviews. We have sustained coverage from the 2004 trip, to her arrest, the hearing ... and continued media interviews and mentions in current published books and scholarly articles. We are not doing an online perp walk. We also have an unusual legal case where an American is charged with being an unregistered foreign lobbyist, and we have the coverage of the case from the point of the government wanting to force an incompetent person to take medication to become competent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: I think the arrest is the cherry on top of a very big sundae of interesting news, and it might well (together with allegations regarding her sanity) be taken as a discrediting tactic. As usual with spy news, there are a lot of angles, but I've been trying to start gathering together bits in the new "Diplomatic activities" section. There was coverage of her in an extremely interesting context, namely whether Libya was or wasn't responsible for the Flight 103 bombing, as early as 2000. I know the draft was written entirely as a crime story, but this ISN'T a crime story, it's something far more interesting. Wnt (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:PERP the only significant coverage in reliable sources was in regard to the trial and the events for which she was on trial. given the dismissal of the charges and the lack of coverage since means deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." We have multiple years of hits in Google News from her trip to Iraq, to her arrest, to her competency hearing. We have a 5 page biographical profile in the New York Times Magazine. We have 3 hits in the current Google News that only carries stories for the past 60 days. There are 876 hits for her in Google Books and 123 hits in Google Scholar on the legal ramifications of the case. We have video interviews with ABC news and RT news. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BLP1E stipulates that we should not have articles about low-profile individuals who do not seek attention for the single event they are known for. While I agree that Lindauer's notability is based largely around a single event, she is not a low-profile individual. She is certainly a person who seeks this attention, evidenced by her public speaking, many freely-given interviews and publication of her book. This alone would probably not convince me, but there is also a substantial volume of reliable sources covering her activity over a significant period of time, indicating lasting notability. I wouldn't oppose rewriting this as an article about the trial but I don't think it really matters. Ivanvector (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: My interpretation of "low profile" when I submitted this for AfD was and is somewhat different than yours, though I'm willing to listen to be convinced otherwise. WP:LOWPROFILE is of course an essay and YMMV as to interpretation. To me "low profile" has nothing to do with the persons intent and everything to do with how the RS cover that person. The Naked Cowboy is an active attention seeker, and to his credit he has been able to garner the attention of RS. Take some hypothetical random 9/11 truther as a counter example (and for the record I'm not talking about Lindauer). This guy may blog like crazy and try to garner as much attention as possible in order to "let the truth be heard". So what? That some conspiracy theorist "source" is willing to give him airplay is no concern of ours. That he is trying to be heard is also no concern. What we should be concerned about how the reliable sources take note of this guy. If the NYT comes out and says this hypothetical nutjob has been making the grade as a celebrity (or annoyance), that would help establish this individual's profile. Just because a dog barks a lot, doesn't mean the barking is low-profile. We need reliable sources to establish this.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and her simply seeking attention wouldn't warrant an article, that's nonsense. It's the volume and persistence of coverage that pushes this over GNG for me. More below. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: You didn't post your section below, and in fact managed to remove some comments there. Please try again... more carefully. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lindauer is not known for just one event. She is known for a substantial number of separate events, written about in reliable sources. The article was written in terms of an arrest and ultimate release because this is when much of the information that is known was permitted to come out, but it is certainly notable material anyway. I have started to add bits of this material but there's a lot to go through. Wnt (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say she is notable for more than one event without stating what else she is notable for. Well I suppose you can (and just did) but it shouldn't have any impact on this decision. If you summarize what you think these points are, that would be helpful and might even sway some (myself included) to change their view.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject seems to satisfy notability guidelines and the sourcing appears adequate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I dunno. The article doesn't make her look so good. The judge -- who was later Attorney General of the United States, no less -- said she has a "lengthy delusional history... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have... even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed".(Hartocollis, Anemona (September 9, 2006). "Ex-Congress Aide Accused in Spy Case Is Free on Bail". The New York Times.) So what's going on here. Either the judge is right, in which case: no article, obviously. Or else he's wrong, in which case this is an instance of someone at the very highest levels of American jurisprudence (a federal judge, and later Attorney General, and someone mooted as a Supreme Court nominee, and all that) being totally in the can for the national security apparatus to the point of labeling someone as psychotic who isn't, which it's hard to image much greater malfeasance than that, and this would be extremely notable. Impossible to know, but I'm with the judge here, so Delete. If the judge was wrong, let's see some evidence from neutral sources with standing and expertise.

For the rest... she's not a published author in any meaningful sense since her publisher is "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform", in other words she had the book printed herself, which indicates that no real publisher thought it worthwhile (although maybe she just didn't shop it well). FWIW compare to Imprisonment of Roger Shuler, also a marginal article, but which IMO gets in because of the highly unusual application of prior restraint which in itself is notable. Lindauer's arrest was for being an unregistered foreign agent which is comparatively common and mundane, as was the judgement that she was unfit to stand trail and the subsequent dropping of the case. Nothing to see here, no article, and if the judge was correct -- and again, give me some good sources that indicate this isn't the case and I'll reconsider my vote -- leave the poor woman alone. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are not valid arguments. It makes absolutely no difference whether she could have influenced people or not. Without arguing over the judge's claim here, we have many, many, many articles on celebrities who have absolutely no impact, whose sole claim to notability is that they make the media echo with their own names until they become household words. Yet I think even you wouldn't argue for deleting those articles. As for your humanitarian impulse, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the "subject believes something unusual so let's gag her for her own good" school of AfD, of which this is a garden-variety example. Wikipedia should not be judging that either; that kind of humanitarianism smells a lot like unconcealed bias. Wnt (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are entirely valid arguments. The decision by Judge Mukasy casts serious doubt that Lindauer was in fact the diplomat and back channel she tried to be, and calls into serious question the veracity of her claims for herself. The charges she actually faced are in fact pretty commonplace and ordinary, not the serious Patriot Act case she claims. Quite a number of her claims fall apart when you look at public sources. Where is the bias? Show an impartial third-party source that shows this to be anything other than what it clearly is, a mentally ill woman who got in over her head, show how her case is notable by impartial standards, and I will reconsider my vote. SpringandFall (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course it makes a difference. I think you've been misinformed. We are not robots or pedants here. If it's true that she's a random mentally ill persons (my interpretation of the judge's characterization) then of course we should leave her alone. There are a lot of troubled people out there, some of them get hey-lookit-this coverage, but so what? We're not here to torment troubled people. We're not here to enshrine random peoples unnotable personal troubles in the world's greatest encyclopedia for (given mirrors etc) all time. Right? We're not, is all. There're no interesting constitutional or other questions to make this article of encyclopedic value for future generations to learn about and ponder. No article. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a boring encyclopedia it would be if only "constitutional" issues were notable. The legal issue was that the government wanted to medicate against-their-will, an incompetent person to make them competent to stand trial. The case is covered in the Harvard Law Review along with other references in Google Scholar. See here for the article: The Law Of Mental Illness

@Herostratus: You must be aware that the accusation of mental illness is one which the subject has always denied. The reasons given for finding her to be ill include that she believed she had been meeting with members of the intelligence community -- which has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources -- and that she said she predicted terror attacks such as an airplane attack on New York in 2001 -- which was confirmed by one witness, and certainly is not impossible considering how many others predicted the attack, e.g. The Lone Gunmen. Physicians have since found her to be mentally competent. So this is an unproven attack on her, definitely not a reason to decide anything. Even if it were true, we may not be robots, but we are pedants! Wikipedia is an educational, which is to say, pedantic resource. That's the essence of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unusual for a defendant who has been found incompetent to disagree with the assessment. What is important is that close to a dozen psychiatrists agreed that she was delusional, and the two decisions on her competence were completely consistent. This is legal fact. At her second competency hearing, she was unable to produce any witnesses to say she was competent. She had two witnesses: one was a personal friend, the other a journalist who admitted she had met her only once. "Physicians have since found her to be mentally competent?" Where are they? Why didn't they testify? You can disagree, she can disagree, but it doesn't change the assessment. Have you read the Mukasy decision? He substantiates this in considerable and very specific detail. Have you read her book in which she talks at length about her "psychic powers?" Do we really need to quote it here? To regard Lindauer as a mentally ill person who is being picked on in this context is entirely reasonable. All this said, if there is an article from a reliable, impartial third-party which questions these two competency decisions and finds legitimate anomalies, then by all means bring it up. What we can't do on Wikipedia is independent research. SpringandFall (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see a substantial number of documents from reliable sources clearly indicating that she was an object of media and government attention. Matthewhburch (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Massively over the GNG bar, which calls for multiple published sources dealing substantially with the article subject. See (1) "Susan Lindauer's Mission To Baghdad" (New York Times); (2) "Turncoat or Straitjacket" (American Spectator); (3) "Neighbor Seemed Activist, Not Agent" (Washington Post, March 11, 2004 — no internet version); (4) "Woman Accused of Iraq Ties Is Ruled Unfit for Trial Again," (New York Times — 2008, four years later!). There are many more but that's way, way more than needed for a GNG pass. Content of the piece is an editorial matter, about which I have no opinion — nor should we here. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its still all "one event". Just because an event has received coverage over a multi-year period. With the US legal system in play, this is rather to be expected. To me this comes down to what "low profile" means as I describe above. Does soap-boxing raise their profile? I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of someone familiar with the background of BLP1E on this matter.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline, WP:BLP1E actually reads: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." We have an event covered in the New York Times and Washington Post so the event is highly significant. Her role is a large one since it was her arrest and incarceration. Most significant people are only associated with one event in their lives. This policy is the single most misapplied rationale in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. In the first five (5) pages of google results, I found only the following references from reliable sources. All were about her arrest and trial:

NY Times Susan Lindauer's Mission To Baghdad
The American Spectator TURNCOAT OR STRAITJACKET? The odd case of "Symbol Susan" Lindauer.
Washington Post dead link: Neighbor Seemed Activist, Not Agent
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren Statement of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren on Ms. Susan Lindauer

I am surprised by the assertions that there are many reliable sources about her at all, let alone about other than this one event. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeSperrazza: I am mystified. You are getting the same version of the article from the servers as I see, with five different New York Times articles, three from the Washington Post, and many more from other reliable news sources? Wnt (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link I used [1]. There were plenty of references, but, in the first pages I noted, only those listed were reliable. Others were blogs, Examiner, etc. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeSperrazza: So your theory is that if Google ranks blogs about a topic highly and crowds out hits from the New York Times, that makes the topic non-notable? This is just about the most peculiar AfD theory I have ever read. Though to be sure, it is interesting that Google ranks the reliable sources so low and the unreliable sources so high for this issue. There are reputation management companies that advertise the ability to do such things regarding undesirable news about clients, but who would hire them to do this? (So far as I can tell from her frequent interviews and statements, Lindauer wants her story told!)

To be clear: I still don't understand why you're not just reading the article rather than going from scratch to Google. This is why we got it temporarily undeleted! Wnt (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! In addition you are skipping hits from Google Scholar and Google Books and Google News Archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"So your theory is that if Google ranks blogs about a topic highly and crowds out hits from the New York Times, that makes the topic non-notable?" I said no such thing. I also did read the article. I stand by my comments. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this isn't really a close call, she easily meets WP:GNG and there's more than "one event". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further to my reply to Two kinds of pork up above: WP:BLP1E is not an inclusion standard. We have it to protect the privacy of otherwise unremarkable individuals who get unwittingly tied up in news coverage of an event they were marginally involved in, for which they do not actively seek attention. Such individuals should be entitled to their privacy, so as a rule we don't write about them. Lindauer is not such an individual. She actively seeks the attention she's getting here, and has continued seeking this attention for a substantial period of time, thus she is not entitled to the BLP1E treatment. She easily passes WP:GNG. Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She sure is entitled to BLP1E consideration because she has a "lengthy delusional history" and is "seriously disturbed" (according to the judge, see my comments above for ref). If the judge is correct -- and I haven't seen a smidgen of evidence that he's not -- she actually rates special consideration. People who actively seek attention because they have a ""lengthy delusional history" and are "seriously disturbed" are not the same as normal attention seekers -- not at all. Very very different. Right? Surely you can grok that. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To this day she is writing articles expressing similar sentiments to what she has previously. Your position is that there are some people who just have embarrassing ideas, and to protect them from themselves we ought to ban Wikipedia from covering them. This is not compatible with the function of an encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: because of the weird way this has gone through, I think the old article talk page is still in deleted condition. It might have additional sources or suggestions that could help improve the article and document its notability, so could someone undelete it? Also, the more conversation goes on the new page, the more complicated it's going to be to do a history merge or whatever. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all coverage relates to a case that received ephemeral interest in 2004 and 2008, ending in 2009. At least one reference does not mention the subject at all. Much of the coverage seems driven by the fact that her father was a politician and that she worked as congressional staff and, to that extent, would fail under WP:NOTINHERITED.--Rpclod (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. WP:NOTINHERITED does not trump WP:GNG which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tad Lincoln doesn't get deleted because his dad was Abraham Lincoln. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cast my vote in favor of Delete, but I would like to know why we are going back and forth on this. How much discussion does there need to be? All relevant points have been made over and over. This article does not fit Wikipedia's requirements. There is no new material from a reliable third-party source. Could we just make a decision already and stick with it? SpringandFall (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I indented your comment for consistency, I hope you don't mind. It looks like you didn't already !vote in the current AfD, from what I can tell, just made a comment up above. The article was relisted as a result of a deletion review a day or so ago, you can go there to read the rationale (it's complicated). I don't know but I assume this new AfD runs for seven days. Ivanvector (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. Well in that case please count my vote. SpringandFall (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say that her notability is "inherited" because she worked for members of Congress is like saying that Andrew Card's is "inherited" because George Bush appointed him Chief of Staff. She simply is notable, and that's all. Wnt (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable, for one event. Is there anything else that she is notable for? I'm not seeing it.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way Keep. Glad to see a relist at DRV. I could have seen it closed as No Consensus, but (with due respect to the closer) a Delete outcome looks a bit super-!vote-y to me. For my part, I don't think this is a difficult call or at all edgy. BLP1E does not apply, given the extensive documentation of the bizarre circumstances of her lengthy prosecution, a prosecution which was terminated four days before a new attorney general was brought in. The subject's activities, arrest, and notably unusual prosecution count as more than a single incident, given the documentation in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. As I'd mentioned in the first AfD, for those arguing one event, the event itself meets every criteria of WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to support this with any reliable, impartial third-party source? There was nothing unusual about how her case was handled, never mind "bizarre." There was no prosecution, for starters, never mind a lengthy one. Once it is proposed that a defendant is unfit to stand trial, prosecution stops and cannot go forward unless and until the defendant is found competent. When a defendant has a psychiatric history, this is what any defense attorney will typically try to accomplish, and it is equally typical for the prosecution to fight it so that they can resume prosecution. This is normal procedure. It is also normal for it to take a long time for both sides to determine mental competence if there is any dispute. She was found incompetent to stand trial twice, and afterwards all charges were dropped. That's it. End of story. The prosecution cannot do or say anything more on the matter in accordance with constitutional law. This is all standard court procedure. The charges she was brought up on were also pretty ordinary long standing laws, and had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. This is one incident only, with no legal aftermath except in Lindauer's imagination. SpringandFall (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability as a person, and WP:BLP1E also applies. Also smells of WP:promo for her book. 1292simon (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? We have one sentence, "Lindauer has written a self-published book about her experience..." referring to a book from 2010. Now when we have a video game ad on the front page, for a product (or the predecessor thereof) that is on sale everywhere, composed of those slick always-a-9-or-a-10 trade magazine snippets artfully crafted into a whole from which any hint of criticism has been combed as carefully as Rapunzel's hair, lovingly illustrated with Fair Use images (about the only Fair use images around here that don't get deleted) to help preview gameplay for consumers, all feeding into the direct link to the manufacturer's site, that's promotion. And we feature it about once a week as the best work people can do on Wikipedia. But this??? Wnt (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those taste of promotion. This smells of promotion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why is this even up for deletion. clear case of making the WP:GNG threshold.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 31 references, some from the New York Times and Washington Post. That's notable. Busy Moose (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above (and at the first AfD), we specifically have WP:PERP to cover cases like this. Whether or not GNG is met, this is a BLP article and BLPs have their own additional rules. The overwhelming majority of "sources" relate to the alleged crime, and any claim of notability hangs on that. Without a finding of guilt, PERP is not met. No historical significance, she was not notable before (and has done nothing of real notability since). Tgeairn (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to badger you but WP:PERP reads (as opposed to what you think is in that rule) that we can have an article when: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual ... such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." As pointed out she is still in the current Google News (which is news less than 60 days old) and in Google Scholar and in Google Books. That means her impact went beyond the standard one news cycle. Also the crime is her actions, this is not the case where an unknown person mails anthrax and we have several suspects that are "perps" and "people of interest". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"motivation for the crime was unusual or the execution of the crime is unusual " - well there was no crime, so there's nothing there. And the shoddiness of the US mental health care system resulting in patients being arrested and being processed through the court system instead of the health care system - there is nothing unusual there either- dozens of judges every day face self delusional claims of importance, far more unique than "i am on a spy mission for the govt." Historical significance of being falsely accused? that also happens a hundred times a day and no significance in that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct! That is why we have a biography and not an article on a crime. Out of the hundreds of times a day these things happen, only a few are covered by the New York Times and the Washington Post ... just like with obituaries. People die all the time ... yet, we still have obituaries in the New York Times of significant people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The more than 30 reliable and verifiable sources from a variety of major national sources, including lengthy coverage in the New York Times Magazine, combined with her book and coverage in other published works, more than clears the Wikipedia notability standard. The murmurs of denial of notability, using tenuous and irrelevant rationalizations for deletion, simply ignore the overwhelming scope and breadth of the sources in the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide one reliably published book that comments on her book. Every one that I looked at was a self published conspiracy theory book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only objection you have is your misinterpretation of my statements? Rebut all 30 sources and you might have an argument. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, perfect example of the strawman fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to The arrest and incarceration of Susan Lindauer Per BLP1E three elements should be met for meeting the threshold of a person having a BLP:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. All of the reliable sources, and the "super sources" like the NYT only mention Lindauer with respect to her activities surround her arrest and the subsequent legal proceedings.
That person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. While Lindauer appears to want to be heard, that is irrelevant. The sources dictate a person's "profile". The "strong" sources don't indicate such, and the weak conspiracy-theory sources should be ignored entirely.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented This is not a significant event, not by a long shot.

Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E retort:

1. All the biographical information on her parents, her education, her work as a DC staffer and her work as a journalist, and her antiwar activity, come from reliable sources, especially her 5 page profile in the New York Times magazine. Where else would they be coming from? This is not fiction. 10 biographical facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from 1 source. Yes, all the sources mention her arrest, just as all the Abraham Lincoln biographies mention his assassination. By your strict reading of BLP1E we would have to delete biographies of living Congressional Medal of Honor winners because of their one act of heroism, and anyone that won the Nobel Prize if they did not have an entry before their win.

2. A self-proclaimed "low-profile individual" doesn't publish an autobiography. A media-proclaimed "low-profile individual" doesn't have more than 30 references in reliable media as well as Google Scholar and Google Books and the current Google News. We have a whole category called Category:Conspiracy theories, they are just as valid as any other topic and the sources used are valid for Wikipedia.

3. The event is significant objectively by the coverage in reliable media, there is no other way to measure it. Subjectively you think it is insignificant. Is your argument really that she played a minor role in her own trip to Baghdad that led to her arrest? Then who played the major role? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) yes there are plenty of sources. However you have failed to address the fact that they are all about one event. 2) she has an AB. So what? Has it received any coverage outside of a half sentance mention? The answer is nyet. The sources determine everything. That she seeks attention, doesn't mean she has recevied any outside of the one event. 3) Significant events have massive coverage. Like 9/11, mass shootings (Columbine,VA tech, Newton, etc), sensationalized crimes. It's like porn, we know it when we see it. If it is significant, we would expect most people would at least be aware of the event. This doesn't even come close. So there is no way this merits a BLP. However a simple rename would make the BLP1E issues moot.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There is no requirement for "massive coverage", or we would only cover people and events on the front page of the newspaper. I have addressed it to my satisfaction, and it appears enough people believe it has been addressed so that we have consensus. You are not going to convince me, I am not going to convince you, so lets just let other people have a chance at the discussion ... ok? I think you and I are just cutting and pasting our previous arguments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each time someone mentions BLP1E, you ignore the arguments and steer the conversation towards GNG. I'm not trying to convince you anymore, but rather impress upon the closer that no "keep" voters have adequately addressed the the key elements of why this article is not a BLP1E, where I and others have identified why this is BLP1E element by element. BLP1E trumps GNG. BLP1E says The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. THIS is the standard for significance, not the definition from GNG which you presented.. Using this standard, this event isn't an entrée, appetizer nor an amuse bouché. It's behind the mint and even the toothpick.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E also says "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Lindauer is not a low-profile individual, as established by multiple editors above and regardless of whether or not her well-documented attention-seeking behaviour is due to a delusion, so it doesn't matter that she passes GNG for what you call one event. BLP1E simply does not apply here. Ivanvector (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is the crux of the matter then, isn't it? All of the support that I see above that Lindauer is not "low profile" is based upon her efforts to get her story out. I don't see any evidence that the sources are paying her activities attention outside of this "one event".Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, many people are most interested in her earlier published statement that it was known to U.S. officials that Libya was not responsible for the Lockerbie attack, her claim (with one witness) that she predicted the September 11th attacks, her prediction of how badly the invasion of Iraq would turn out, etc. Wnt (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Those people are usually referred to as "crackpots". Should a high quality RS cover these crackpots interest in Lindauer, I would change my vote to keep, provided that we also state this interest is coming from crackpots. We can't and shouldn't state that her visit to Baghdad got a lot of press but then fail to mention it was the crackpot press. Any "kept" article will need to be zealously watched to keep the crackpot "people deserve to know the truth " edits out of the article.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that simple a division. We have many RSes in the article that do say these things, though a few things (the 9/11 prediction) are treated with some skepticism. Wnt (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is that simple. The sources are not there to go beyond the BLP1E threshold. Examining the current article, the only "source" that gives Lindauer any serious consideration is a dubious source called Scoop authored by Michael Collins whose bona fides are not established.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindauer was published in 1998 in a "Middle East Intelligence Bulletin", then cited in a 2000 Sunday Herald article "Lockerbie: CIA witness gagged by US government". These sources were cited by the NYT and others after the charges were made four years later. And searching news from 2000 isn't that easy - I think I may have missed other references, given that Lockerbie was a huge news story at the time. I should add that if you click the "books" link at top, Lindauer seems to be mentioned in a vast array of sources --- the caveat being that if there's any way at all to tell where in a book she's mentioned from Google, it is beyond my knowledge, or indeed if Google hasn't made a persuasive-sounding fake hit out of whole cloth, let alone how to sort hits by publishing date -- but the books include some from pre-2004, e.g. a 2002 book "Painful questions: an analysis of the September 11th attack". Wnt (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there may be reason enough to keep, but sources that haven't been examined are not reliable sources at all. We need at least one editor to have read the source in question. We shouldn't speculate at about the quality or content of unknown sources.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many reputable sources discussing her arrest and her book, and she has been appearing frequently in certain media to comment on current US affairs since. Sure, these media aren't main stream, at least not in the US, and she might be advancing fringe theories. That is however more reason to have an encyclopedic entry. I expect Wikipedia to give me information on controversial figures. I was looking her up because she appeared on RT, and wanted to find about her background from a different source. Will this entry have to be defended from crackpots? Probably. But there are many articles that fall into that category. Ansgarf (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, when did Wikipedia become a platform for advancing fringe theories that no one else finds worthy of coverage? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, have you read the article? You have no justification to claim there are no RSes. And claiming that covering any non officially sanctioned point of view is "advertising", well, that's convenient. Wnt (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Connolly (Canadian politician)

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

WP:BLP, citing no reliable source coverage (a list post on an Internet discussion forum is not valid sourcing), of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is being an as yet unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person past WP:NPOL — if you cannot adequately source that the candidate was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article under a different inclusion criterion before he was named a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. (I initially speedied this for lacking a substantive claim of notability, but changed my mind and opted to take this route instead.) No prejudice against recreation in October 2015 if he wins, but he's not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I've searched and can't find anything notable about this person. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being a possible candidate in an upcoming election is not enough to show notability and there's a lack of significant coverage. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Godling Chronicles

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

Self-published books with no claim of significance; little secondary coverage. Article is likely written by the author. Blackguard 23:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. You can find a bunch of reviews of these books easily with a Google search. The (auto?)biographical information about the author is suspicious but insufficient to delete the page in light of WP:AGF. On the other hand if you can prove it's him I would say delete it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that you'd have to show that the reviews would be usable as reliable sources to show notability. I haven't searched yet so there may be RS reviews out there, but traditionally self-published books will usually only receive reviews from self-published sources like blogs and via social media review sites like Goodreads or Amazon, none of which can count towards notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Plus even if RS reviews do exist, we need to see them on the article or in the AfD talk to some degree- saying WP:GHITS isn't really a good way to argue for inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did search and while I found two local articles about the series, I didn't actually find anything (else) that would really be usable as a reliable source. The closest I found to a RS was this link, which was written by someone representing the author so it'd be considered a WP:PRIMARY source. As I suspected, all of the reviews for this series have been written by various book review blogs, so they've be considered WP:SPS. The thing about SPS is that while they might be well written or entertaining or popular, none of that makes the SPS a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. It's fairly rare that we have a blog that would be considered an exception to this rule and we don't really have any in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Tokyogirl. Sure, there are plenty of reviews on blogs or Amazon, but where are reviews in reliable sources? The New York Times? The Boston Globe? The Washington Post? Nada. Nha Trang 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even find a site for Longfire Press, which is rather odd. I can find their PR firm, though. I find no reviews in reliable sources. The article has been completely written by a Single Purpose Account, and I have to assume that the WP article is part of the publicity campaign. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No credible assertion of importance, unsourced BLP §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roanna Ruiz-Jamir

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

User keeps on deleting the prod-anyway outside of being a host on a show this needs some clean up or deletion. Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-also before someone comments on why this went up, well it seems once someone removes the BLP that this is the next action. This person might actually be notable, I don't know. But yeah it was getting crazy. Wgolf (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Bodart's All Hallows Eve (Film)

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

Article with no references given considered reliable, article also has WP:MOS issues and could do with either significant work to bring it up to standard or removing. Individuals in movie appear to meet WP:NOTE but notability is not inherited. Amortias (T)(C) 21:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete At best, TOO SOON. While we might politely assume this is probably filming it has no coverage in reliable sources and in lacking coverage it fails WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow undeletion or recreation only when notability can be established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:MichaelQSchmidt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No assertion of importance, unsourced BLP §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slick Rick (radio)

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

Had it as a prod but looks uniotable now. the user keeps on removing the prod templates from all of the pages (and has been warned about making unsourced BLP's.) Wgolf (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Savvy Gupta

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

Can't quite find notability-on another note interesting enough the biggest contributor has the same name as him. Wgolf (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Typical vanity page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:MUSBIO and is also not notable otherwise.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cashy

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

This is an article about a non-notable individual, created by a sockpuppeter in order to increase visibility and reputability of his company by adding external links to his company, Fox Weekly. He used an IP address to create this article, and in a previous RFD, he used his account and 'double dipped', voting under his IP, in order to stack the vote on this article with relatively low turnout. Other articles belonging to Juice656 and 98.248.241.179 have been deleted as well, and in particular I very strongly encourage you to look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FoxWeekly, and to read the *entirety* of that RFD, noting the odd placed second and third keep votes, and the blatantly false second inline comment. --Yamakiri ^T_C 09-25-2014 • 21:10:27 21:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suppose it's self evident because I proposed the article, but I'm voting delete, and possibly suggesting a checkuser on the offending editors. --Yamakiri ^T_C 09-25-2014 • 21:12:46 21:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7. Author has blanked the page three times, each time it was reverted. Subsequent removal of the AfD template was likely due to confusion. If the author wishes the article restored I will do so and reopen this AfD. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Paola

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

Appears to fail on verifiability. Of the sources presented that are online, none appear to actually mention the subject. I was unable to find any reliable source online that provides any indication that the content of this article, as it relates to the subject, is verifiable. Given the subject content, I would expect that any sources on the subject would be available from the internet or GBooks. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable. The entire article is a copy/paste of Patrik Lindberg. Ish dar ian 08:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Octavia

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

Amazon only finds one book of this purported series. WorldCat finds no holdings. I can find no published reviews. I would be glad to be shown I am wrong, but I think this is probably self-promotion of a non-notable book and planned books. LadyofShalott 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 20:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - asked for assistance on the fantasy task force. My gut says Delete, however; looks like a non-notable self-publishing project. LS1979 (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence it meets any notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bihu Mukherjee

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

Combination too soon and not inherited issue here. Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I guess nom is right. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bass test

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

Cites no sources. Statements are arbitrary and unverifiable. Furthermore the subject is irrelevant; virtually all modern music is mixed with strong basslines or other bass information. Written like an ad that's not exactly sure what it's selling. B137 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see what criteria for deletion this meets. It's definitely not advertizing. It looks like an old orphaned article that needs sources, and nobody has bothered trying to find any. Hopefully someone will improve it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Music made for testing bass is certainly a "thing" but nobody has written about it in reliable sources. I am open to someone rewriting the article when there are sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prajapati clans

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

The page gives totally fake information and has no source/reference. It seems that it's simply individual's own opinion which he used just for the sake of glorifying a caste Mahensingha 18:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Kumhar. And I wish Sitush would come back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unsourced and almost certainly unsourceable OR. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fully unsourced and portrays individual opinion only.Mahensingha 06:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Meira

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

A soccer (footballer) player who has never played a full season pro Wgolf (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this with the rationale "Article concerns a young footballer who fails the football-specific notability guideline by never having played in a fully professional league or in senior international football, and for whom there is no evidence of his having received enough significant media coverage to pass the general notability guideline." This remains valid, and I'm afraid I don't really see why the AfD process was considered necessary. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well anymore they seem to change prods to AFD's when there are sources (which there is) so I was just helping by doing that. Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – article about a subject which does not meet the WP:GNG. C 679 22:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 26 September 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) 10:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Zareei

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

From the looks of it-unotable soccer (football) player Wgolf (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way forgot to say-falls under too soon.Wgolf (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 26 September 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) 10:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gwalla (G11: unambiguous advertising)

Ryo Dubstep

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

Can't put a prod on this since there are sources (even if invalid) but this guy seems un notable. (I am deleting the phone number on here) Wgolf (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I did consider putting a speedy as well as a bio, but I went with this in the end. Wgolf (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unsigned, "looking for deals", "next big thing",... How many code words do we need for "this guy just ain't there yet"? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ting Li

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

Orphaned page, probably written by the person herself. Runner-ups at this and that dissertation awards does not meet WP:NACADEMICS and there is nothing to indicate that her publications are highly-cited, but I admit I'm not an expert. At least I believe the page ought to be scrutinized. Timmyshin (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Work is cited thousands of times, as shown here [3]. Meets the criteria underWikipedia:Notability (academics). ShoesssS ^Talk 17:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands of times"? I checked the first five pages of your Google Scholar search and I'm yet to see her name anywhere. Please provide evidence. Timmyshin (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TK LI.ShoesssS ^Talk 12:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Google Scholar, her highest-cited article is only cited 21 times (5 of which has her as an author). Timmyshin (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is that Shoessss found the citation statistics of a medical geneticist at Indiana University that just happens to have the exact same name as the subject of this article. David Eppstein found the correct citation statistics and they're about average for an academic of her standing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Citations per Google scholar profile [4] are well below threshold for WP:PROF#C1 and there is no evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria. WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per David Eppstein findings. The "Keep" above is based on mistaken citation metrics for a different person of the same name. Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shahzad Hosein (Hussain) Turi

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

Non-notable local journalist / blogger known for creating The Parachinar Times, an online newspaper which appears to simply aggregate stories published elsewhere (mostly on geo.tv), with Turi being the sole contributor (i.e. selector of stories from geo.tv to aggregate onto his own "newspaper"). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN blogger. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not establishes the notability. Justice007 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - just some kid's vanity page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyad Mohd Arshi(Politician)

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

Says "politician" but see no proof of that (plus given his date of birth highly unlikely) also no reliable sources either. Wgolf (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-just noticed that this article under the name with no politician on it has been SALT and by the same user. Wgolf (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Eliza TT

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

WP:HOAX Completely fictional event. No such race as the Mount Eliza TT has ever been held. Falcadore (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I've tagged it under A11 since per nom - it's a hoax, Both the website and the book cited in the article doesn't even exist .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaella Di Marzio

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

Italian clinical psychologist with an interest in cults. She has a handful of publications, none of which has been cited extensively according to GS (single digits, except for Le religioni in Italia, which has been cited 20 times). Sources in the article are (numbered as of the moment of writing this AfD): (1) not independent, (2) brief review, (3) quote in a small magazine of unclear notability/reliability, (4) no link, but apparently a quote in the famous For Men Magazine, (5) unclear, as I cannot open the video, (6) radio interview on a station of unclear notability and not verifiable. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Raffaela di Marzio is a noted part of the anti-cult movement - she has written multiple books on the topic of cults and religion, as a psychologist and a catholic and is cited in a number of books -

Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices - J. Gordon Melton, Martin Baumann
Occulto Italia - Gianni Del Vecchio, Stefano Pitrel
Le religioni in Italia - Massimo Introvigne
Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults, Janja Lalich

...To name but a few.

She is also part of the International Cultic Studies Association board, one of the largest, if no the largest, "anti-cult" groups in the world.

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The article needs to be developed further, not deleted. Zambelo; talk 01:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked in Google Books, and she is one contributor amongst dozens in the encyclopedia by Melton. In "Occulto Italia" she has a single footnote in the bibliography. In "Le religioni in Italia", she is cited as "a collaborator", and in "Bounded Choice" she is not even mentioned. This person does not meet the notability threshold for Wikipedia. Being cited in a couple of obscure books is not enough. Add to it the lack of reliable secondary sources that attests to her notability, and we have a no brainer here.- You can mention Di Marzio in the International Cultic Studies Association, but for a full article we need notability. Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? She has a high enough profile within the religious scholar community to be included in an important publication. She is published within the circle of religious scholars studying New Religious Movements - this means that the sources where she is referenced also belong to this relatively small group of authors on this niche subject within religious studies. She is notable as a new religious movement researcher, associated with ICSA (but independently notable), referenced by her peers, and having been published in numerous peer-reviewed articles as well as some other publications. She has also been interviewed in her various roles by the mainstream media. She has also given various conferences on the topic of new religions and cults. The article should be kept, and expanded. Since Di Marzio is Italian and writes in Italian, there are italian sources available that can be used for the article. You've mentioned the existing references, but have you looked for new ones? Zambelo; talk 05:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please familiarize yourself with WP:ACADEMIC. Publishing is what academics do and in and of itself does not make them stand out. My undergraduate student has published in peer-reviewed journals, that does not yet make her notable. What is needed is that people have noted those publications. You only need to click the link to GScholar above to see that the numbers of citations to her works are very low. While that doesn't prove non-notability (not something that can be proven anyway), it does not indicate any notability either. As for your last remark, have you looked for additional references? And what did you find? (And a final request: could you perhaps indent/format your comments as usually is done in AfD debates, because that makes it easier for others to follow the conversation. Thanks.) --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming she is an academic. Her work is however referenced in other works by prominent authors. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." is from Wikipedia:Notability_(people). She appears in scholarly articles, books, and in print, radio and TV media. Zambelo; talk 13:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the lead starts: "Raffaella Di Marzio is an Italian clinical psychologist, Catholic teacher. She is a member of the editorial board of the academic journal, Cultic Studies Review,[1] and director of the Sectes, Religion, Spirituality Counseling Center, in Rome." That sounds pretty much like an academic to me. And most of your argument above is based on her having published "within the circle of religious scholars" and "peer-reviewed articles", all things that non-academics really don't do. But if you don't want to apply WP:ACADEMIC (like all SNGs, designed to make it a bit easier for academics to pass our notability guideliens), I'm fine with applying GNG, because the paucity of coverage makes her pass that one even less than ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination and discussion above (specifically, even if we use the more lenient guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC, this BLP does not meet Notability). --Tgeairn (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination - promotion creation article by user smee - User:Smee - Tuscantreat (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, there's just no meat here. There are versions in the history where an attempt was made to create more content, but basically this was no more than a fluffed-up resume (you'll find earlier versions where the claim of over 100 published articles was sourced to her own website). Neither her job nor her publications allow her to pass via PROF, and a few media appearances don't yet make for notability, so the GNG is certainly not met. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like the usual delete squad is out if force. Good job guys. Zambelo; talk 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we are! But let me tell you about a secret weapon that goes directly for our Achilles heel: significant coverage in reliable sources! Works like magic, I guarantee you! Just a few of those, and you might even see the squad !voting "keep"! --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were true, the squad would be more intent on finding new sources, instead of deleting entire articles that could be improved. It's very easy to destroy another person's hard work. Zambelo; talk 08:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The squad didn't find any sources, so the onus is now on those arguing to keep the article to come up with a good reason to do so. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. There's one editor (me) looking to find sources. Meanwhile there's three of you tearing down articles and then deleting them. Great procedure, I hope you're proud of the really constructive work you're doing here. Zambelo; talk 09:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's so nice to see people assume good faith that somebody who nominates an article for deletion has followed WP:BEFORE. Creating good content is what should make an editor pourd, but there's no reason to be ashamed of taking non-notable content to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith was after the first three or so articles. Good faith after the 7th or 8th is a little hard to justify. That, and the fact that you never attempted to constructively add to, or discuss, the articles. 11:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding is difficult to do if there is nothing to add... --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very reluctant to delete an article on a national figure that has an extensive article in their national WP, though this depends on the particular WP in question--I will always accept the judgments of the fr and de WPs, whose standards are more rigorous than our own; I am somewhat less convinced about the others. When, as here, the article is not fully translated, we need to consider what it in the other WP that could be used. I think te material in the Italian WP shows that she is an authority on new religious movements, and that meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, I am a bit surprised by your reasoning. As far as I can see, the Italian wiki has no additional independent sources than our article here. The main difference between the two articles is a long list of Di Marzio's publications and I think there's a long-standing agreement in AfDs for academics that publishing alone does not make them notable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Emergency in Ballincollig

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

Unreferenced, this appears to be a personal essay or view point on life in small town Ireland during WW2 Gbawden (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like some WP:OR and runs against the general rule/idea that Wikipedia is not a place to publish an essay. EricSerge (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Seems like a pet project. Snappy (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially this is an unreferenced essay. Other than some useful, non-WP:OR, town specific information that could be added to Ballincollig if it is not already there, the rest is mostly stated in The Emergency (Ireland) already or could be added if referenced. ww2censor (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. softdelete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thalassery Raghavan

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

A screenwriter I can find very little about, everything I've tried to find just links back to here. Wgolf (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. softdelete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Williams (producer)

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

Someone with just television role and is a owner of a company not even on here. I can't find that much notability here. Now granted owning a TV company is very impressive, and is notable in a sense but from the look of it, sounds like a local independent one with nothing behind it. Wgolf (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Brandman

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

A director with just one unotable theatrical film and 2 short films. Seems to be too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's wait for his future films. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R. Kelly Legal history and image

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

I can't really see why this would require or warrant an independent article in its own right. Page was recently speedy deleted under WP:A10. Seems to be a (POV?) content fork by a couple of editors engaged in some sort of dispute and I also posit the intent is censorship of certain material from the main R. Kelly article. Aside from that, the method in which it was forked may create copyright issues as there is no attribution to original authors of content. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think such an article could be created, but this might not be the one we want. For one, there is no such thing as an "Illegal marriage" - it's either void, valid, or voidable. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Bearian and so believe this is both beyond saving and not worth saving. Yes, I suppose we could have an article about this subject but I can't see why we should. The content is a BLP nightmare with unsourced speculation and wishy-washy comments being treated as "proof of fact". BLP still applies here people. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of CRT, LCD, Plasma, and OLED

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

This article is all WP:OR and WP:SYNTH CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep has plenty of sources. There exist similar articles so it's not wp:or or wp:synth. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Because other articles exist" is never a reason to keep an article, those articles may be just as inappropriate, or as in this case, much more specific and therefore cite-able.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not valid reasons to delete. ~KvnG 14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they are. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are you referring to WP:DEL-REASON #6, it is not sufficient to simply show that there is WP:OR in the article. My reading is that you must show that it is not possible to improve the article to remove it. This is clearly not the case as there are many quality comparison sources already cited. ~KvnG 17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see none of the cited comparisons as being particularly valid or useful. There exist counter examples to every comparison in there. All this chart does is say "for most COTS screens these things usually hold true" This kind of chart belongs at anandtech or tom's hardware, not on an encyclopedia as it requires us to make a judgment (not citeable) as to what monitors are included in "COTS" and what "usually" means. If you wanted it to be encyclopedic you should compare how the various technologies work and that would not be a chart, but a textual analysts (something each article does on its own already). CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The info is not fully covered by the sources, so it is own research contrary to the content guidelines. The Banner talk 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a perfectly valid and useful comparison. An excellent support article for the Comparison of display technology with much better layout and more information. I would like to see more sourcing to support factual statements made here. And I think DLP should be added to the chart, though the current title is self limiting and while this is under attack, it shouldn't be changed. After we Keep this, it should be added, by me if nobody else does it. Trackinfo (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is not great article, it does have notable sources to keep it around. It does need some editing to be more neutral and not subjective. Frmorrison (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Frmorrison. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Haley

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

Singer whose only source is on Myspace, his band does not even have a page it seems! Can't find that much notability to be honest Wgolf (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is Steve Haley. I have updated my info and links and ask you to PLEASE not delete my page. If there is anything additional I can do please let me know. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetlv (talk • contribs) 02:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer of a non-notable band. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Louisa Espiritu

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

outsourced, lack of text Owais khursheed (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe this should have been speedy deleted for lack of a claim of notability, but the template was removed twice. It has been expanded by a second new editor, and according to IMDb she has completed 3 shorts in addition to the forthcoming films the article now lists, but I find nothing about her except her own social media, IMDb, and a funding campaign. So this is premature; she has not yet achieved notability as we define it. I've left a note for both editors; it's possible that now they know what we need, they can turn up press coverage I could not find, or some other indication of notability they didn't think to mention in the article. But as it stands there is no sign of such. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it may be worth, the second editor, User:EE2014, is a renamed User:Espiritufilm—renamed because of username policy. —teb728 t c 07:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She may be producing new films but we will have to see what they will add to her -now non-existent- notability. Too soon. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. —teb728 t c 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Noëlle Ada

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants. WP:POINT this nomination, along with more than a dozen other Noms that have been found by the same editor, were poorly researched, or more specifically, additional sources (apparently from discussions with this individual) were just assumed to be worthless. I suggest it is deliberate ignorance of WP:BEFORE to make their point. I added a little to the article. There is extensive publicity about the contest and each contestant. Many countries, including Gabon, laude over their nominee in the press. Lots of other factors at play. Media is different in each country. Sources that look unreliable might be the outlet of highly reliable sources in that country due to the technology of the press and its readers. Gabon also speaks French. Trackinfo (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You can continue attacking me personally, but the fact is that she just gets 134 unique Google hirs. And that is including Wikipedia, related websites and social media. At best, a redirect to the pageant itself is warranted. The Banner talk 15:42, 25 September 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is sourced properly and she is worthy of notability based on WP criteria imo. Orasis (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABA Bank (Advanced Bank of Asia Ltd.)

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

Looks like a tiny, rather local bank. No independent sources to prove notability. The Banner talk 23:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found ~~this~~ [edit: I linked the wrong article here, it should be this] in The Cambodia Daily and this in The Phnom Penh Post. As the latter ref says, this bank won "Cambodia Retail Bank of the Year" in the "Asia Banking & Finance Retail Banking Awards". These refs and the award pushes this above the keep threshold for me. I did not look in non-English sources. 109.79.36.79 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please take into account that internet access in Cambodia is still limited and therefore many notable things there will not be well-represented on the internet. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yoshukai Yudansha

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

Seriously fails WP:NLIST. Most of the individuals listed will never meet the notability requirements. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it's mostly names from the article, and three of them are linked. These are the upper ranks that have served as the pioneers and organizers of the style. This is no different from making lists of notable graduates or faculty at a university, for example, many of which include names that are not considered important enough for articles in Wikipedia. I could put it within the article, but I thought it would eventually grow to a fairly large list. From WP:NLIST, this would satisfy "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles." Pkeets (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's from WP:CSC, not WP:NLIST. I should also add that the specific list requirements for people (WP:LISTPEOPLE) require that entries on a standalone list of people must be both notable and verifiable members of that list - neither is the case for most entries here. In addition, three members of the current list are apparently notable in their own right (they have articles about them), so every entry in the list does not fail the notability criteria. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced list of names. For reference see List of aikidoka where every entry has its own article or List of karateka. If we do that - there is only a very small group left, easily covered in the main article.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article that claims to show every black belt in the style. If that's so, it's a very small style. If not, it's a subjective list that's OR. Notable students seem to already by mentioned in the box at the main article.Mdtemp (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 04:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of The Mighty Mighty Bosstones

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

Non notable series of mid price compilations which haven't appeared on a chart. Other titles in this series have all been deleted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/20th_Century_Masters-The_Millennium_Collection:_The_Best_of_Grace_Jones et al Nominating the following for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force 402

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

Looks like a possible WP:HOAX. See this Google Books search. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find no references to a "Task Force 402", other than articles citing Wikipedia. The reference cited in the article makes no mention of "Task Force 402". As such, lean towards Delete as a hoax until the article can be properly referenced and cited. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retry

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

It must be notable changes are not used. Since created of months will be Redirect to Rovio Entertainment pages without deletion anyways for the release date is too long. This article is not used since of Selfie Slam is already redirected. MandatoryTeaser (talk) 10:29, 25 September 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 September 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eh? Whatever the nomination is trying to say, a Flappy Bird clone shouldn't be the main topic for a mainstream word like this without more sources and less crystal. Andrew (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note, this nomination is from a non-native speaker. The article has notable sources, there are over 10 from reliable ones and the game is still in limited release.Frmorrison (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Keep changes without deleting perimission. Once of the Selfie Slam article redirects to Rovio Entertainment. I'll nominate this for now. MandatoryTeaser (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selfie slam only had 2 reliable sources and each only had a sentence about the game. Retry has many more and go in depth about the game.Frmorrison (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frmorrison, I only see 3 references - one to "Pocketgamer", one to "angybirdsnest.com", one to "o.canada.com", not 10, but you're correct that they do cover the game in some depth. As a general comment, the nominator has been blocked as a sock, and this was almost certainly a "pointy" nomination in response to the "Selfie Slam" article AFD - but maybe the sourcing could use a little improvement, nevertheless. "Gameplay" is an unreferenced section. I wouldn't vote to delete, though. Begoon ^talk 16:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forbes Tech Softonic NL (I don't know this language but it mentions the game so please help check whether RS). More is easily expected to come when the global release (date) is confirmed, which warrants at least a no-prejudice-to-recreation then. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 14:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Softonic link, I'm believe it's a "no", the reason being that Softonic is a download site, and they've included a download link to the game (hosted by them) at the end of their article. BTW, I haven't had the greatest of experiences with the site's downloads either, they sometimes contain adware/spyware and others have reported malware as well. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the game has gathered quite a fair amount of coverage, with sources such as Technology Tell, PC Mag, Gamezebo, BGR, Android Authority, Pocket Gamer and VG24/7. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Themis Tolis

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

Has been tagged since 2010. I don't see the notability for this guy at all to be honest other then being a drummer. Wgolf (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Permanent band member of a notable Greek metal band, and presumably one of the founders as well. The article does need more information, and judging from the "Controversy" section of the band's article, it seems that they would have at least something to add in his bio... Aerospeed (Talk) 02:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Rotting Christ. Per WP:BAND, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". I see no evidence of independent notability here. — Gwalla | Talk 18:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When this page was last relisted there was a call for a closer examination of the sources cited in this discussion. The examination and comments made by Bondegezou most convinced me to close as delete. J04n(talk page) 00:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kardashian Index

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

This is one person's WP:FRINGE proposal, no indication of take-up in the academic community, surely much WP:TOOSOON. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One uncited primary source, even in a reputable journal, is insufficient for notability and not enough material to provide the basis for an article. Especially when the final section heading of the source indicates that even its author didn't intend it seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~it is newly coined so will not have many references~~. And there is more than one reference - this also counts [5] (but that reference in The Scientist, that is enough to establish notability). As for seriousness - there is a long tradition in presenting serious points through amusing formulae or propositions. Ask any scientist. This one is more serious than Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon and far less annoying. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 14 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If "it is newly coined so [it] will not have many references" then it is WP:TOOSOON for a wikipedia article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking out my "it is newly coined so will not have many references" comment because it is not correct. I should not have accepted at face value the assertions of the first two editors that there were not many sources. There are LOADS of sources out there. However, I'm not quite sure what more references are needed, or why? We already have references explaining what it is and who coined it. Do we need references showing its increasing and ongoing notability and popularity? Things like [6] from July 29th, [7] from 1st August, [8] from August 4th, [9] from August 6th, [10] from August 7th, [11] from August 8th,[12] from August 14th, [13] from 28 August, [14] from 17th September, etc. And here is it being mentioned in the Smithonian magazine [15], and USA Today [16], Huffington Post[17], and Yahoo News [18] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You get 19000 hits. I get exactly three. As I said above, no evidence of take-up in the academic community. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think most of the above links are? They show it is being widely talked about in the academic community (as well as in the wider world). What more do you want to see to satisfy "take-up in the academic community" - serious peer reviews in academic journals by noted mathematicians, every scientist including their Kardashian Index in their resume!! It's just a humorous science metric that is commenting on fame and the requirement to publish or not. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there appears to be substantial coverage on the web. Whether it is serious or not is immaterial. WP:FRINGE does not apply as it does not contradict established science.--Mrjulesd (talk) 00:28, 20 September 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I orgininally closed this as delete but closer examination suggests I was probably too swayed by the numbers rather then the arguments. I am therefore relisting as we clearly do need to discuss these sources more. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me summarize the delete arguments, and their weaknesses. The proposer used the reasoning WP:Fringe to justify the AfD. However, as was pointed out later in the discussion, Fringe does not apply in this case because the subject did not in any way contradict established science - so an argument to delete based on those grounds can be dismissed. The second advocate for deletion stated that there was only one source. However, twelve more sources were identified during the discussion (including undoubtedly usable ones like Smithonian Magazine and USA Today) negating that editor’s opinion. Many of those sources also indicate the subject is being talked about within the academic community - thus answering the proposers second point, the "no indication of take-up in the academic community". The third advocate for deletion merely said that he agreed with the deletion reasoning of that previous editor and that of the proposer, so added nothing new to the discussion. The fourth proposer for deletion also brought no argument of his own to the discussion, merely quoting my own words, words which I later withdrew as being incorrect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And those sources indicate that the paper was satire and a joke, and we don't need an article on every joke published in a journal (otherwise we'd need an article on Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Saying "other articles don't exist" makes for a very poor argument for delete. See [19]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not actually a joke, it is actually scientific in nature. It is a metric that could actually have some meaning. But the idea is probably humorous to some extent. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the Smithsonian article: "This 'joke' article is only funny if you are a senior tenured professor with lots of papers and yet have a low follower count on social media" and "Anthropologist Kate Clancy made a similar point, noting that the joke, which skewered people with less power in the scientific community, just wasn’t funny" and "The paper, meant to be satirical, was titled “The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists.”" --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would still contend that it is different in nature to most jokes and satire. However you look at it, it is a measure that could actually have some relevance outside of humour. People could actually use it to assess popularity versus actual achievement. That is why there is so much interest. --Mrjulesd (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahecht, is your reason for delete that academic papers cannot be humorous or satirical, or that you don't think Wikipedia should have articles about such subjects? I doubt if either are legitimate reasons to delete. But at least you have conclusively put to rest the "no evidence of take-up in the academic community" assertion by indicating that only a "senior tenured professor" can really fully appreciate it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – more than enough citations in Google Scholar, as shown here [20] to establish “Notability”. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google Scholar number of hits drops to a small handful when you bind the phrase in quotes. A single paper and a few casual mentions of it do not meet notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: still, there are two eminent sources listed, "Genome Biology" and |"Nature", plus sciencemag.org. To get any sort of mention in these sort of publications suggests notability. And the one at Genome Biology is presented as serious research. And also there is a huge number of sources in popular media --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. It's a funny paper (which is perhaps not quite the same as a joke paper), which got a couple of high profile mentions when it came out and amused a lot of people on social media. It could go on to have some real value: it is, indeed, a metric that can be applied. However, I don't believe that has been demonstrated. WP:NTEMP makes clear that Wikipedia is a "lagging indicator of notability". If this index goes on to have an enduring value, then I have no objection to the article being re-created, but for now, I would follow the advice of WP:NOTNP and WP:RECENT and ignore the concept, and delete the article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:TOOSOON? There is a mass of sources on the web. We shouldn't risk WP:TOOLATE. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've yet to see a single valid argument for delete. They all seem to contain misunderstandings about Wikipedia policies, the "toosoon" one being an example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "mass of sources on the web" are all about the original article. We do not have articles about every research paper that receives some coverage. I've had research papers that got coverage in newspapers: I do not think they warrant articles. I would like to see some enduring value shown. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is comfortable with being a "lagging indicator" of notability. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, but that is not really a WP:TOOSOON argument is it? The essays says "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." But there has been a lot of sources recently. What you're wondering about is if coverage will continue.

Maybe you're right, and it will be soon forgotten. But also maybe you're wrong, and interest continues for a few years? I think at this stage it is difficult to say how much interest will be shown in the future. In the meantime, maybe somebody will want to look up WP to find out about it? Should we wait a few years to find out? I suppose I'm appealing to WP:COMMONSENSE. Also, research papers in eminent publications generally indicate notability. If you've had research papers in the past that have reached that level of interest, then I feel at least the subjects should be represented, and articles updated to reflect your discoveries. --Mrjulesd (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: WP:TOOSOON is not the right reference. I refer you to other arguments above for alternatives. The subjects of research papers that attract interest should, indeed, be covered: the subjects of this Kardashian Index article are Twitter, citation indices and a Kardashian, all of which have articles about them. But the "Kardashian index" itself is a one-joke idea that has never been used in practical situations. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So which article would you place this in? You said "But the "Kardashian index" itself is a one-joke idea that has never been used in practical situations." isn't that a little presumptuous? But I think the real interest of it is looking at how celebrity can compare with achievement. It's along the same lines as the Peter Principle, it makes a pertinent point in a humorous fashion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am being presumptuous, but in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy. WP:NOTNEWS is clear that Wikipedia considers "the enduring notability of persons and events". Show me evidence that this Kardashian Index has enduring notability, that it is ever used in a practical situation, then I will support keeping it. But, as I said before, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability: we are meant to wait for (enduring) notability to be shown before having an article. (As has clearly been shown in the case of Peter Principle.) As for what article would I place this in, one could cover it adequately, I believe, with a single sentence in Bibliometrics or H-index#Alternatives_and_modifications or somewhere like that, or one could have a science section under Twitter usage. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I simple don't believe it to be a news story. And if Wikipedia was always "a lagging indicator of notability", no current ideas or events would be included, which is not the case. Nobody can see into the future, but I think it fulfills the requirements for notability now. And I don't think you have come up with a suitable article to include this in instead.

I think that maybe the main problem with this article is the title: the Kardashian Index. I have my suspicions that Wikipedia users do not like to be reminded of the Kardashians! --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To date, we've had the original article, and then we've had other sources saying, "Look at this amusing article." That, it seems to me, comes under WP:NOTNEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I've not seen presented here a single serious use of the Kardashian Index. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been looking through the sources presented more carefully. Mrjulesd above suggests that the original paper is presented as serious research. I note that the person who wrote the original paper has explicitly said, "It is a joke!" (quoted in the Nature article). Most of User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's initial list of references above are blogs and probably do not count as reliable sources. One, this one, is about a different use of the term and nothing to do with this Kardashian Index. As noted, a Google Scholar search using bounded quotes produces only 5 hits: the original article, news pieces in Nature and Science, and two false hits that contain no reference to this index. The Nature article is a short news piece about "papers and issues gaining traction on social media" and it covers both this paper and another. The Science article is also a news piece. The USA Today coverage is a short news piece in the celebrity section. Most of the interesting news and blog coverage is less about the Index as some usable thing and more about the subsequent Twitter debate, the #AlternateScienceMetrics hashtag and underlying issues in science around who publishes. I would summarise that as: a satirical, joke article that spawned some interesting social media debate and got a bit of news coverage. Whether that justifies a Wikipedia article... I don't think so, but I respect the views of those who think it does. If the article is kept, it should focus on the resultant debate rather than merely explain the (satirical) maths. However, I think it is important to make clear that the coverage does not support the idea that this is a serious index: Murjulesd's suggestion that, "It is a metric that could actually have some meaning." does not appear to me to be supported by anything presented yet. Bondegezou (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that assessment Bondegezou. Well I think it would be hard to argue that it was a totally serious concept, the name alone gives that away. There is undoubtedly a large element of humour attached. But I've said before, there is a serious side to it: are many popular scientists unjustly lauded, while others more deserving scientists receive scant praise? I think that is the point it is trying to make. Whether anybody will actually calculate a Kardashian Index or not is hard to say, but my argument is that this actually unimportant; the real point of it is to examine celebrity status, by comparing achievements against popularity. I think many powerful arguments are given through humour, off the top of my head Russell's teapot come to mind. He didn't expect anyone to actually look for a teapot, but it was the serious message behind a seemingly humorous assertion that was the point.

Anyway I probably won't take part any more in more debating on this topic, I think I've probably said all I've wanted to. People joining in should probably read some of the comments made before forming an opinion. "If the article is kept, it should focus on the resultant debate rather than merely explain the (satirical) maths." maybe I will do that if the article is kept. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak neutral — Yes, weak neutral, whatever that means. :P I say this because there are many valid points raised above on both sides... well, except the scientific use clearly fails WP:N (the scholar hits are simply not actually there in number). That said, the news of it being science might pass WP:N, but, then again, the news of it being science might fail WP:NOT#NEWS... but then again, a scientific concept wouldn't exactly be "news" in the sense that NOT#NEWS is usually applied. I noticed things like [21], which don't just parrot the news, but also then say "oh, here's a top list we made." There's clearly buzz on blogs of actual scientists (which can semi-sorta be considered reliable as field-specific expert analysis), but realistically blogs as a general whole aren't considered actually truly reliable sources. As a whole, it doesn't seem to garner the actual widespread coverage we typically have for WP:N, but then again, it's probably predominantly interesting to the scientists themselves and not the public at large. Hmm. --slakr^\ talk / 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the issue with the "mass of sources on the Internet" is that they pretty much all amount to "hey, look at this amusing paper!" Perhaps if this metric is put into actual use in the real world it could become notable, but we're plainly not there yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nimkish

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

Non notable product. The creator seems to have relation with the brand (See his username). Also reads like an advert. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete pure spam. If this hadn't been nominated here, I would have deleted it on sight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. —teb728 t c 07:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: when I nominated the article for discussion, it was not in so bad state. But now, I think speedy is the best way. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chbar Morn Football Club

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

This Football club appears to play in an amateur league. The article has no incoming links, nor does it have any meaningful content other than an infobox with a few redlinks. Bikeroo (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bikeroo (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - Serves no purpose, fails WP:GNG as the Cambodian 2nd division is not notable. JMHamo (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which meet the criteria for speedy deletion. WP:USELESS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Needs sourcing, but club appears to play in a national league structure? Fenix down (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a Cambodian team playing in the top tier is notable, but this is a second tier club. JMHamo (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the long standing WP:FOOTY view is participation in a national competition (i.e. a national league pyramid or cup competition) is sufficient. Not saying keep, as there is very little hear, but it seems strange we have very low level teams in England who are deemed notable because they have competed in the FA Cup once but a team competing in a country's second teir is not. Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, it fails WP:GNG quite comprehensively... not many, if any reliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, I can't see anything on the club really and RSSSF has no record of it taking part in a cup competition from their admittedly sparse records, but I wouldn#t go so far as to say the Cambodian second teir makes clubs inherently non-notable. Fenix down (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G7 criterion. Materialscientist (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claudiapaola

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

Appears to fail on verifiability. Of the sources presented that are online, none appear to actually mention the subject. I was unable to find any reliable source online that provides any indication that the content of this article, as it relates to the subject, is verifiable. Given the subject content, I would expect that any sources on the subject would be available from the internet or GBooks. VQuakr (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qmobile A900

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

Data sheet for a telephone with no indication of its notability and lacking independent sources demonstrating such notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article created this month. Tag it for notability, use WP:PROD or just give it time to develop. ~KvnG 14:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if it was created yesterday, last week or last month - if it doesn't meet our inclusion crtieria then it should never have been created in the first place and should be deleted now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article was created in good faith and in accordance with notability policy by an editor with a better understanding of the topic than any of us. Additional time will allow editors to find sources. Since this is a Pakistani topic, that may be more difficult than usUal. ~KvnG 13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to assume good faith, but we don't allow subject matter experts to publish original thought or original research (including that relating to commercial products) just because they are subject matter experts. Again, a topic must have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources before we create an article. We can't use our crystal ball to gaze into the future and guess that there might be coverage later on. I'm not suggesting the author was disruptive in creating the article, just misguided and perhaps a little over-enthusiastic. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming the author of this article has access to sources that we have not seen. The author apparently lives in Pakistan so I don't think this is a far-fetched assumption. ~KvnG 02:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm assuming that if he did, he would have added them by now or at least hinted at the existence of such sources. Just assuming there might be sources out there somewhere isn't enough. After all of that, I'm happy for it to be deleted without prejudice against recreation if the author manages to show up with some sources at some later stage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:20, 30 September 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 05:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - things don't get articles and then become notable. They need to be notable before they get articles. Happy to accept this was created too soon. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Makes me laugh when you folks are saying that its not notable.. Lol, what wikipedia basically wants.. It wants an article on which thousands of books having ISBN number are written.. Oh, common there aren't books on a telephone grow up dude.. whether this article is deleted or whatever it was not profiting me and never will.. I just thought, it should be on the wikipedia.. Checkout this article its a phone of same brand with no world class references but it still on wiki with no freakin' deletion tag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QMobile_Noir_Quatro_Z4 .. ARK (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands? No, just two would do it (per "multiple") and they don't even have to be books. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT are never good arguments. Any actual, policy-based reasons for keeping this? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, there aren't so many references regarding a cellphone.. Just to show its existence.. Some references should be needed.. Moreover, you and I know that many of the articles on Wikipedia are orphan.. No policy apply on them, but they are on Wikipedia, you should wait so the article could be enhanced.. ARK (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're missing the entire point of WP:N and WP:V. We don't create articles about things and then wait for them to become notable. You have it the wrong way around. Policy applies equally to all articles - if you find other articles about other subjects that don't meet our inclusion criteria then you should offer them up for deletion just as Carlossuarez46 has here. We don't improve the quality of the project by setting a new lowest common denominator. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same point I am discussing.. Again and again you're saying its not notable, how could it be..?? Its a cellphone brand only available in Pakistan.. If wiki doesn't allow article on a phone which is available only in one country then its fine to kick this article off.. But yeah if wiki policy that you're mentioning allows article on a phone brand like this, (I know it allows) then bro its totally nonsense to talk about notability.. The thing is notable if you look through it again.. ARK (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with arbitrarily "allowing" something or not. It's "allowed" if it's notable - that goes for almost any subject in existence. If it's not notable, it's not notable and you've suggested it's not (...how can it be?) St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have the google you can check it's notability and add some more references rather than commenting on notability and standards.. ARK (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per St★lwart. The article seems to be a bit of OR as well. If deleted, it is probably best to userfy it. I checked its notability on Google as well, and couldn't find much. In any way, I'll fix a bit the wording of the article.Dmatteng (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Hammouz

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

Not sure how acting mayors fall into Wiki standards. But also this has the problem of the external link being a dead link as well. This guy does not seem to fit it from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Now let me add a couple of things-about the dead links-I've been finding a bunch as of late but none of them have actually made me start an AFD until now. Also I was iffy on this but since I've seen mayors of small towns get tagged this was a good question that came to me. Wgolf (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayors of small towns are not automatically notable, especially when the article has no sources. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 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 05:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nablus is large enough (128K) that its mayors would generally be considered to pass WP:NPOL — and while we'd exclude someone who was acting mayor of a city for a matter of days (e.g. Joe Swan in London, Ontario earlier this year) from being considered permanently notable on that basis, a person who was acting mayor for the better part of an entire year might, maybe, have actually accomplished a thing or two of substance. So the word "acting" is, in and of itself, irrelevant to whether he's notable enough or not — the real knockdown here, however, is the complete lack of any reliable sourcing to verify whether there's any substantive reason why he should have an article. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write a substantive article that actually cites sources, but this version's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (WP:SOFTDELETE). Deor (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orcanos

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

Company does not appear to be Notable (WP:ORG An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources). Stesmo (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:44, 17 September 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 05:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Val Fuentes

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

Just like him I also dream of world peace and try to keep away from NN 'drumma' articles because there is a strong Drumma Lobby here. Having said that, I somehow dare to present this case to discussion as I believe the subject does not have enough notability to have a stand-alone article in WP. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

He plays for the group It's a Beautiful Day and is the only member of the band with a blue link in WP. I believe this could be redirected to the band's article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO #6 ( a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.) Shadowfax, New Riders of the Purple Sage, It's a Beautiful Day. While he isn't mentioned on the Shadowfax page, he was indeed a member of the Grammy nominated group ^[1]. He also played the Notodden Blues Festival with the Pure Pleasure Band, so has appeared internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceronomus (talk • contribs) 05:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.marinnostalgia.org/portfolio/shadowfax/

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours

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

WP:CFORK that doesn't warrant a separate article- its content can easily be described on the main Christina Aguilera article and her tour articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As this just repeats basically the same argument from the last AFD, I'll also repeat my comment from it: If the concert tours all have their own pages, then this satisfies WP:LISTPURP as a navigational index of notable topics. The bare list in Aguilera's main article is only annotated by year, with far less information than this list contains. Whether this list could be merged there is a matter of editorial discretion based on WP:SIZE concerns. In short, I don't see why time should have been wasted on this AFD at all, and I'd highly recommend to the nominator not to just mechanically nominate every list of tours he finds as he seems to be doing (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rihanna concert tours (2nd nomination), basically the same deletion rationale offered). postdlf (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna's tours are irrelevant per WP:WAX, and it was mentioned both here and here that this doesn't offer anything that her main article and tour articles don't already give. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed to your other pending AFD to caution you against an agenda. The last time both lists were at AFD, they were also nominated by the same editor who also just repeated a similar argument; both were kept by unanimous !votes. So please refrain from nominating any further concert tour lists until you see how these go to prevent everyone from wasting time on what are basically the same discussions on the same questions over and over.
The low-attendance featured list candidate discussions you link to each had one editor making that comment, one of whom was you. So I don't see how that is relevant here, or persuasive. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CFORK, WP:NMUSIC and WP:NCONCERT. Simon (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:CFORK: "[A]s an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." That's what we have here. NMUSIC is not applicable so far as I can see, except for its section NCONCERT, which you cited separately, so I'm not sure what citing to NMUSIC was intended to communicate. And re: WP:NCONCERT, that section talks only about when individual tours merit articles, not lists of them, and this list includes four tours that have their own separate articles. postdlf (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and informative article. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 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 05:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an entirely valid WP:SPINOUT from the Christina Aguilera article. Per WP:SIZERULE, merging back to the Aguilera main article isn't advised, because it's at around 133 kilobytes. WP:SIZERULE states that articles over 100 kb should "almost certainly should be divided". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As postdlf and NorthAmerica1000 say, this is a valid spinout that serves a legitimate function. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above me - Shoving all this in to the main article would be chaos which is probably why it has its own article anyway, Passes GNG, Anyway I suggest this be snow closed.. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. softdelete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.Reu

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

Simply not notable. Touring lacks coverage. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article features a bombardment of sources but lacks any good ones. Sources include MySpace, Youtube, Discogs, datpiff, itunes, metrolyrics and the like. None are independent sources that provide any depth of coverage about J.Reu. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:56, 17 September 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 05:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Caesarean section. Consensus to merge/split following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elective caesarean section

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

"Elective caesarean section" is a commonly used term but it is problematic because it is used in different ways in layman and medical literature. The actual content in this article should be merged to Caesarean section and Caesarean delivery on maternal request, because it is forks of those articles with nothing new. Check the article history - I already moved a lot and the rest can go too.

The problem is that "elective" means "scheduled or planned" in a medical sense and "optional" in a layman sense. The confusion comes because frequently when the surgery is scheduled, it is also because it is optional and not medically indicated, thus people schedule optional surgeries or elect to have elective surgeries.

Information about planned necessary surgeries should go into the article on c-section, because nowhere else do scheduled surgeries have their own articles. Information about planned unnecessary surgeries should go to the "maternal request" article, which I am proposing to rename "unnecessary caesarean section". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note For people voting keep, I would like to see a source discussing this topic only. Many sources include this topic as part of discussion on caesarean section, and a lot more sources talk about this in the context of unnecessary caesarean sections. I am not sure if this subject is discussed as distinct from c-sections except when it is unnecessary. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Caesarean section. Caesarean section on clinical indication is performed either as an emergency or electively. Those that are performed on maternal request are characteristically not emergencies; that's not the same as "elective". JFW | T@lk 19:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Caesarian section and Caesarean delivery on maternal request, but with much more clarification in the Caesarian section article about the differences between these concepts. I would not agree with renaming Caesarean delivery on maternal request because it is clinical terminology and used in the literature (example), I will also add to the discussion there. --Gccwang (talk) 20:59, 17 September 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 05:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to me to present a strong case for keeping the article. It is very much encyclopedic to try to clear up popular misunderstandings that may be widespread. So, I then wondered whether the article in its present state might be very poor in explaining the matter. But no, it does a good job, in good part due to the improvements the nominator has made. I don't have an objection in principle to merge but I think it is unnecessary, even somewhat undesirable. I think this article should not deal with CS generally, leaving that to the main article, but limit itself to the issues specifically concerned with the "elective" and "emergency" aspects. The target article is sufficiently long (and under the right title for the main article) for a breakout article with good cross-links to be a good idea. Finally, and most importantly, this title must not be left as a red link. The expression is widely used and people will want to find out what it means and so will be able to discover it is simply a caesarian section that has been planned in advance. I expect, however, the nominator is really suggesting creating a redirect rather than actually expunging the title. Thincat (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - seems an uncontroversial matter per WP:FORK; the issue is not whether the material should be kept within the encyclopedia but whether there should be multiple articles on the matter. Whether an operation is 'elective' or not, it's an operation. Clearly it's not just a redirect because the reasons for having the operation may vary, and may have medical and ethical implications, but still, it's the same op. BTW it's hard to see why there should be more than one article on Caesarean section: certainly not three. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article seems to clumsily suggest a "third path" between an emergency caesarean and a "caesarean delivery on maternal request". In fact, an "elective" caesarean would seem to fit within the definition of a CDMR. This would seem to be an Australianism where "elective" means a specific thing. But as an Australian parent, nothing at Caesarean delivery on maternal request strikes as different to my understanding of an "elective caesarean". The sources would seem to confirm as much. Suggest the content be merged to Caesarean section as appropriate with the title redirected to Caesarean delivery on maternal request. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article creates unnecessary confusion, when in fact this appears simply to be a subset of Caesarean delivery on maternal request. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demas

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

Article about a non-notable figure barely mentioned in the New Testament, about whom nothing is known. The pop culture section includes separate figures who share the name, but who for all the reliable sources I can find might as well be named after the entirely unrelated robber in the Narrative of Joseph of Aramathea, one of the robbers crucified with Jesus. Also, Paul didn't write the Pastoral Epistles. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 25 September 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 September 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even the smallest biblical subjects tend to draw commentary, such as in this book by John F. MacArthur [22] and this essay collection [23]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 'pop culture' section is not as described in the nom - each of the references are specifically to the biblical character - that authors over several centuries thought Demas notable enough to reference him in this way seems notable in itself. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:StuartDouglas: On slightly closer inspection, I think you may be right that all the fictional references at least refer to the NT character in question. However, both the Jane Eyre and Pilgrim's Progress reference appear to be bare mentions of the name; the Johnson novel is one fiction writer in 2007 writing a novel in which an (entirely fictional?) character is named for a New Testament figure about whom nothing is known. His name is mentioned once in a list of six of Paul's fellows in one of his undisputed letters, included in a similar list in one of the disputed epistles, with a piece of probably unhistorical information included in a probably forged epistle written decades after not only Paul but Demas had died. Up until I hid the offending text moments ago, the article openly lied about Demas being mentioned in another first-century text (check yourself!). The article might be expanded if some secondary sources can be found discussing his appearances in other early Christian literature.

How about this: the article is kept, but expanded to include other (related) figures who happen to share the name. I can't think of any other precedents for this, outside of superhero comics, though...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the other figure has his own, much longer, article in which this name is already given along with several other, mostly similar and probably related, names. I guess my latter idea is off the table then? I'm not even sure anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to withdraw your nomination. St Anselm (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that? The article I nominated still contains virtually no useful information, and this situation will likely continue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Biblical characters are generally notable, and this one is no exception, as evidenced by the references in the article. The Jane Eyre and Pilgrim's Progress references are clearly to this person; the suggestions that it is to Dismas instead is highly implausible. St Anselm (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references to which you refer are non-notable name-drops, and please don't put words in people's mouths: I never claimed the references were to the other biblical figure. I merely said that reliable sources cover the (much-better-known) thief who is named Demas in non-canonical literature. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StAnselm. This Demas is covered in printed Bible encyclopedias, etc., and they are much smaller than Wikipedia. tahc ^chat 03:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much smaller, as in their standard article length is shorter? On Wikipedia, articles that by definition cannot be expanded beyond WP:STUB-length are generally deleted or merged. There seems to be some theological question here, so I should point out that I don't mind one way or the other whether this article is deleted. A merger with one of the probably several WP:LISTs of biblical figures without independent articles would be acceptable. I am even willing to do a complete 180 and withdraw this AfD if someone presents me ANY convincing arguments other than assumptions of bad faith and "notable because he's in the Bible". (Sorry to put a direct paraphrase in quotes, but how else are we to interpret "Biblical characters are generally notable" and "per StAnselm"?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication on the page you indicate that STUBs should be deleted or merged. Is that just your idea?

What I am saying above is that printed Bible encyclopedias are much shorter as whole than Wikipedia as a whole, and yet they still find room on there pages for such an article. Characters are generally notable if there are secondary or tershary sources on them. Demas has such sources. tahc ^chat 16:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that stubs should be deleted or merged. I'm saying that articles that cannot by definition be expanded beyond stub length should be deleted or merged. Bible encyclopedias find room on their pages for a one-line article about how Demas was a follower of Paul and one of his letters indicates he left Paul. If you have a Bible encyclopedia on hand that provides more information than that, please add it to the article! Again I must stress that I don't have a dog in this race (I'm not a Christian, but I don't see it as a "win" to get articles on Christianity deleted), and I'm perfectly willing to withdraw my nom if some evidence is presented that this article will ever be anything more than a stub. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks such as this. James500 (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StAnselm and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedram Khosronejad

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

Apparent autobiography. WP:BLPPROD removed without explanation. Fails WP:GNG. Richard Yin (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In the time it took me to nominate this article someone else put it up for speedy deletion. This AfD may be redundant. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy--it is not overly promotional, and it indicates notability as the author of multiple books. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't have had a problem with DGG speedy deleting this article (promotion comes in many forms, and I think this article is), I guess this fellow gets his day in the sun before this article is deleted for easily failing WP:GNG. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He now holds a position at St. Andrews College in the UK that is an endowed chair "The Goli Rais Larizadeh Fellow of the Iran Heritage Foundation for Anthropology of Iran" [24]. He is listed as a "Research Fellow", [25] but I have no idea what that means in the UK academic world. All this to say that judged as an academic he is interesting, and, IMO, en route to notability. I will add the St. Andrews info to the article. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a chair and he's not a professor. He's not even a lecturer. A research fellow is a professional academic researcher paid to do research only. He doesn't have a teaching position, although he may do some teaching on the side. That doesn't mean he's not notable (although I suspect he isn't), but don't equate it to a chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found an organization that he is chair of, and added his position and chairmanship. As WP:PROF he is getting much closer. I am leaning toward weak keep because I do not know the status of these positions. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable as an authority in his specialized subject. His most widely held book, he art and material culture of Iranian Shi'ism is in 700 libraries, according to worldcat--a very high number for such a topic. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labels India

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NMAG - no reliable third party coverage (WP:RS). Also, WP:PROMO. C759 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed most of the promotional fluff, but then not much is left. No sources => no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Odense Boldklub squads

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

Contested PROD. Non-standard content fork, does not meet WP:FOOTBALL MoS JMHamo (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: By all means, if a club played a notable season, write an article about it and include the squad there, but a list of squads on its own does not warrant a standalone article. Jared Preston (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needless fork. Squads can be listed in relevant season article if at all. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Fails FOOTBALL. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not needed, could/should be mentioned on individual season articles and that's it. Giant Snowman 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Karki (name). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rume Karki

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

This article probably should just be speedied, but I am putting this here, the only thing I can find on google is this page and a Facebook page. Not sure what to say about this. Wgolf (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: This article should be redirected to Karki (name), just a type of under Karki surname. Hackerboyas (Talk) 02:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Hackerboyas-well it would be a redirect to itself as that is the only thing that is linked to it also. Wgolf (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I could not find any reliable sources, even after searching through Google Books, JSTOR and Google Scholar. I was going to vote delete, but we might as well redirect if an article exists. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hulusi Bulut

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

Other then this article needs clean up (and a easier way to read it), not sure if this guy is notable or not as of now. Wgolf (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.marinnostalgia.org/portfolio/shadowfax/

[1]