Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 January 22 January >

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 wrong venue. Already at MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 18:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suggested sources[edit]

Wikipedia:Suggested sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Suggested sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relevant reasons for deletion:
6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Suggested sources purports to provide a list of "preferred" sources, without ever establishing any objective standard for why certain sources should be preferred over others, and without establishing who prefers these sources or why these sources belong in the "suggested" list. Even worse, this article links its concept of "suggested sources" to the Wikipedia concept of "reliability," giving the misleading impression that the reliability of the listed sources is unquestionable. This has resulted in a situation where sources are recommended seemingly entirely based on political POV and vague concepts of "quality" which are mostly tautological.

Since August 2013, a request to establish some reliable basis for inclusion or exclusion of sources from this article has persisted on the article's talk page without any solutions being brought forward. I have attempted to spur discussion of some set of objective rules for exclusion (i.e. Why suggest MSNBC but not Fox News? Why suggest CNN but not MSNBC or Fox News? Why recommend all the British left-wing news publications, but explicitly recommend against all the British right-wing news publications? Why recommend print and television sources, but not any established electronic-only sources?), but still nobody with opinions about which sources to include has been able to provide an apolitical, objective reason for inclusion or exclusion.

Without any objective rules, I don't think it's possible for this article to be anything more than a WP:SOAPBOX, in which editors seek to include sources that they politically agree with or personally like, and exclude or explicitly recommend against sources that they politically disagree with or personally dislike. All of the sources under discussion do, at one time or another, meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. But to have an article devoted to a subjectively cherry-picked list of sources gives the impression that Wikipedia is not a politically or institutionally neutral project. It is not Wikipedia's mission to decide which sources are most "suggested" for people to read to inform themselves about the news. TBSchemer (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Football Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Northeastern Football Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable amateur football league. As such, it fails WP:ORG because this organization does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. The only thing I found was WP:ROUTINE coverage in local newspapers. Tavix |  Talk  23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found some information that may be good to include in an article on semi-pro football in general, but nothing specifically about the notability of this particular league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationales above of nominator Tavix and Paulmcdonald: fails to satisfy WP:NORG and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Donetsk People's Republic#Government. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a non-government post that is written like a government post. I redirected it to Donetsk People's Republic where this topic can be covered more neutrally, but was reverted. Therefore I believe it should be deleted (or at least redirected based on a wider discussion). Thanks Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged with Donetsk People's Republic#Government personally. This state may not be recognised, but it does control territory and seem to have some form of government. JTdaleTalk~ 15:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. There's ample information on the government of an unrecognised state in the Donetsk People's Republic article already, particularly in light of the fact that it's presented as a list assuming that there will be further elections and (unrecognised?) Prime Ministers. Considering that the status and future of this unrecognised state is unknown, the premise of this article is based on WP:CRYSTAL and is a WP:POV push. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. There's not enough information to justify a separate article at this time. Plus as was mentioned, at this time it's not even clear if the state will even last. WP:CRYSTAL at least. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 22:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a lot more legitimacy as a leader of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant than these guys as "prime ministers" of the DPR, because they are nominated from Moscow. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to DPR. It's reasonable content to hold here, but there's no need for splitting it to a separate article. It's currently so sparse that it's swamped by its own template boxes.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete - This article and the linked series of articles related to the DPR are dangerously close to pro-separatist propaganda. What's worse is that this article contains precious few reliable sources and even less substance; the appearance of these articles (a national crest, really?) are clearly intended to impart a sense of legitimacy to a Russian-sponsored rebel Ukrainian state government that no one outside of Moscow recognizes. The article was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. Merge to to the parent DPR article, and this may be re-created at such time as substantial content supported by in-line footnotes to multiple, independent, reliable sources become available and the need for a separate article is demonstrated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Ruef[edit]

Nino Ruef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced Biography of Living Person. I was unable to find sources giving any independent, reliable, in-depth coverage of the subject. Best case scenario: My research attempts are proven woefully inadequate, and the article is improved after notability is established. However, this appears to be a non-notable person. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • He definitively is notable for all his work with the big acts in his young age, check his facebook or twitter page, there is way more to come!
sorry i'm not familiar with the art of commenting back on your sentence, yet...
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offexp (talk • contribs)
He's also on IMDb so it would be a shame to not have him here on wikipedia. *wink* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offexp (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. His work with the bands listed appears to be production-side, primarily as an online communications manager of some sort during tours. Notability is not inherited, especially in this sort of situation. The other article content is strictly promotional. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Squeamish O. Note that out of the five (primary) sources cited, only one mentions his name. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All sources contain his name, just look or watch the videos. I think it definitifely is notable, if this work has been done in the USA he already made the "status" as good boy, but just because he is from oversea? I would like to leave this page, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offexp (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) — Offexp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey guys, what happens now do we keep or delete it? Because if we keep this page i'm looking forward for grabbing some more infos and articles the next week. please let me know soon that we can close this discussion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offexp (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just googled him because I wanted to know more because I saw Nino on TV today but there was not a lot like biography things so i think it would be fina to keep this page! Greetings from Germany, Nic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoallens (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC) — Nicoallens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Hello, somebody still here watching this discussion? Offexp (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Offexp, you're only allowed to !vote once, but you can comment as many times as you want. I'm striking your duplicate !votes. Also, a discussion for deletion lasts 7 days and will be handled by an administrator after that time. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Robertson[edit]

Sebastian Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no reliable substantiation of these claims and it also is probably an autobiography. Kges1901 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The claims regarding his two books do have substantiation, including an interview in Rolling Stone. That said, I don't think they're notable enough to warrant inclusion. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ah, as a Robbie fan, it's a bit of a shock it's hard to say no to anything about him, but I'm deciding this one is wp:toosoon in the sense that there isn't enough to support inclusion, but someday there might be. LaMona (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G4: Recreation of an article deleted by deletion discussion) by Czar (talk · contribs) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Price Index[edit]

AfDs for this article:
World Price Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Economic index published by a single company with little or no notability. The cited "notable news coverage" all refers to a single report produced by the WPI publisher claiming that the Canadian dollar is undervalued, which report was picked up by several Canadian online news organizations in what could best be described as a "blip". WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy tagged the article as it was just recreated and deleted earlier today. [1] I suspect the creator is deliberately changing the title around. [2] --NeilN talk to me 22:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and looks very much like Speedy Delete (although I'd leave any conversation of Salting to the admins). The article has no citations or evidence of notability of any kind, except that they once had a release picked up by a few online news sites. Notability specifically asks for "multiple" secondary sources, not just one. -Markeer 00:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 1957usac crash at nouasseur morocco[edit]

May 1957usac crash at nouasseur morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original version of this article described this accident based on a first-person eyewitness account. When the article was PROD'ed as OR, the author revised the article to reference a Lloyds of London report on the incident. It is unlikely that Lloyds of London is willing to publish their internal report of an incident that they investigated as part of an insurance settlement, so this incident remains essentially undocumented, and is therefore still OR. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable military accident from what little the article says. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable accident, this sort of stuff happens all the time and is rarely of note and has as far as I see zero coverage in the media. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable military accident. Seems to lack "significant coverage" in RS per the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - run of the mill military air accident from the 1950s, when these were very common. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable accident....William 12:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QC Reporting[edit]

QC Reporting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No Google hits on the first three pages. Web site for the product is 404. No sources cited in article. Reads as product brochure/advertising/howto. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Not notable, and software may not exist now.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With apologies to Johnuniq, I see no option but to close this as "no consensus"--the unfortunate side effect of a bundled nomination. There are enough comments on individual entries that even after the removal of Truss it is not possible to read a consensus either way. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aum (unit)[edit]

Aum (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an obscure unit which is not sufficiently notable for an article, and as Wikipedia is not a dictionary there is no reason to even list obscure units at English units unless encyclopedic information is available. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they cover other non-notable units:

Bag (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belshazzar (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bucket (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Butt(unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Button (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (had recently been redirected: diff)
Circular inch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Circular millimetre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cord-foot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Customary stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deal (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dimi (metric prefix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (had been redirected: diff)
Dutch cask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
House cord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keel (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lacta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lambda (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Large sack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Micri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ocean-ton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Octave (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roll (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Room (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarpler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seam (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shackle (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ship load (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stuck (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stupping ton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tod (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Truss (unit) withdrawn per my comment at 05:23, 18 January 2015 below. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tub (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wey, Load (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Whey (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over 90 articles on units have recently been created based on the following source:

The articles (with some discussion of their content) can most easily be seen at my sandbox (permalink). This AfD lists 34 of the unit articles. Related AfD discussions are:

Botella (measurement)
Calibre(unit)
Meou
Quarter yard
Ramsden's square chain
Ramsden's square link
Salt spoon (unit)
Solomon (unit)
UK and US counting units
UKline

Many websites contain large lists of units, often with little information other than a claim about the conversion factor (example: there are 130.461538462 sacks [UK, wook] in 1 keel [coal]). Similarly, the book used as the reference for the articles at AfD appears to have no other information—there is usually no indication of where and when a unit was used, nor how widely. For example, the book contains a table (p. 29 in the sample pdf) of "UK units of weight for coal" showing there are 47488 pounds in a keel, and 15680 pounds in a room—and there appears to be no further information available for those articles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: please reconsider the recommended merge target since not all of these are exclusive to the UK. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note: you have cited the Cardarelli book, but this is part of the problem. Much of it (at least, the section on "former units") is an uncritical collection of anecdotes ("A large sack holds 2 cwt of coal" -- "Yes, perhaps it does"), which have been copied in bulk into these articles. It is simply not reliable: see my notes (comments welcome). Imaginatorium (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge this nomination itself could be used as the basis for a new article, List of obsolete units of measurement. Even if there is nothing more than a conversion factor for each line item, as a group obsolete units are notable. At a minimum, please redirect Circular inch and Circular millimetre to Circular mil since the former is a 1:1000000 conversion factor away and the latter is a plausible misunderstanding of a unit still used in North America. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A matter, though, is that some of the units of measurement may be uncommon, but are not necessarily obsolete. For example, see Butt (unit), Customary stone, Dutch cask, Lambda (unit), Seam (unit), Tub (unit) and Whey (unit). As such, how about a merge to the title I listed above, and then separating the entries into sections (e.g. presently in use, obsolete)? NorthAmerica1000 04:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Do you have any information about the use of "customary stone", for example? The article tells us only that 1 customary stone = 1 clove. The SOED (a vastly more reliable source) says that a 'clove' is a former (in 1933) weight for wool and cheese equal to 7 or 8 lb avoirdupois. Isn't it somewhat fishy that something a reliable source says is variable gets assigned statements like "1 kilogram is equal to 0.314960629921 clove."[3]. Note that this correspondence makes a "customary stone" quite distinct from the customary "stone" in use (still!) for slimming magazines. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all the units you list above are units I would characterize as "obsolete." By contrast, as I noted above calling some of these units "United Kingdom units of measurement" is not only arbitrary, but explicitly wrong. A cord-foot and a house cord, for example, are obsolete units that were used in North America but not the UK. Though I am nearly sure we could find an exception or two, I would default to calling any unit not recognized by the SI, metric, or US customary systems "obsolete." VQuakr (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input VQuakr. Upon further consideration, I have modified my !vote above. NorthAmerica1000 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all based on the decisions of the other AFD's and also previous discussions at ANI these are non-notable, even in a list most of them are so widely unused and irrelevant that even a list about them seems meaningless. Also, the source that these units come from is questionable at best (it has been pointed out that this book includes such comparisons as "1 pair = 2/3 hat trick" and other meaningless conversions. War wizard90 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. If someone wants to create an article on e.g. obsolete UK units of measurement they can do so but these would be a poor basis for them, per the above concerns about sourcing. So not notable on their own and no need to create a target and redirect.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to new list article (as other editors describe above). Pax 07:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or merge to a new list article. These units may no longer be in use, but there are enough references in older books to provide notability (e.g [4] for Aum). And, in fact, the bottle size "Belshazzar" is still sometimes used. -- 120.23.106.215 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a source for this ("Belshazzar") then please add it to the existing table of exotica under Wine bottle. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Procedural keep to de-couple entries: (I wrote: (delete all) is the simplest action), but it would be silly now to delete the Truss (unit), though I think it should be moved to Truss (bundle) or similar, because it is not fundamentally describing a unit. (previous comment not retracted, but not applicable)...because these are of unredeemingly low value. Occasional fragments might be used in a real page, but the work of picking them out is more than the work of starting again on an article like Measurement units in the wool industry, or adding to existing articles like Wine bottle. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Customary stone: The only thing Google finds is an old book (example) which includes "the customary stone weight of wool being 18 pounds"—in context, that is saying that it was customary for a "stone weight" to mean 18 pounds when measuring wool for sale, at that time and place. There is no evidence that there is such a thing as a "customary stone". Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Wey, Load and Whey (unit): These are the same as Wey (unit). See my notes with information on different "weighs". Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The fact that a unit is antiquated is not a sensible reason to delete because, as a general encyclopedia, we are here to provide information about such obscure topics. We have no policy forbidding content on such grounds and an editing policy which indicates the opposite. It is quite easy to find further sources which document units such as the aum. For example, see here, "AUM, or Aume, a Dutch measure for Rhenish wine, (as an aum of hock) containing forty English gallons." while other authors such as Dibdin has more to say about it too. Note that there is even some need for disambiguation too as there's a second AUM unit - the animal unit month (AUM). There's a huge amount to consider here and, in some cases, we might choose to merge into an existing page. For example, the circular inch might be merged into the circular mil, as they are related units. This would not be done be deletion but by ordinary editing. Working through all this detail will take time but there is no pressing reason to do all this in seven days. This just seems to be a vexatious proposal contrary to our behavioural guidelines insofar as it is directed against the work of a particular editor rather than obscure units in general. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to you to be this. It seems to me to be a reasonable proposal to deal with a bunch of dicdefs that happen to have been created by somebody who cribbed from one dodgy source. You seem to me to have the start of a decent Wiktionary entry for aum; you are of course very welcome to create this. Or of course aum could be part of some more general WP article, but one based on a better source than Cardarelli. (I've listed some promising sources see here.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Truss (unit), which keep (but probably rename, per Imaginatorium. Allow resurrection of any of the others if and when there's credible evidence that it can be turned into something of encyclopedic (and not mere dictionary) value. Unreliable. I've checked most of them against Koizumi Kesakatsu, Tan'i no jiten (i.e. "A dictionary of units"), 4th ed, Tokyo: Rateisu, 1981 = 小泉袈裟勝、『単位の辞典』 第4版、東京：ラテイス、1981年 (no ISBN), the 4th edition of a somewhat larger book by a metrologist and a small team of helpers. Some aren't there, some are described differently. (See my comments here.) Cardinelli's book clearly represents a lot of work, but I view it with considerable skepticism because I know that what it says about Japanese units is a terrible mess: Imaginatorium has looked into the units of weight, and I have checked these against Koizumi Kesakatsu, Zukan: Tan'i no rekishi-jiten (i.e. "An illustrated historical dictionary of units"), Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 1989 = 小泉袈裟勝、『図解 単位の歴史辞典』、東京：柏書房、1989年 (ISBN 4-7601-0512-3) (see here); I don't know what happened, and my best guess is that some joker simply fantasized the existence of what Cardarelli solemnly presents as large units. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) ...... Altered Hoary (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I wrote my "delete" not-vote immediately above, Truss (unit) has had a considerable amount of work done to it by Andrew D.. All praise to him for creating something informative, interesting, and indeed encyclopedic. It's possible that other stubs in this long list can be worked on similarly, and even that Andrew D. would do much of the work himself. However, I doubt that this is possible for more than a small minority any time soon, and so I still believe that the rest should be deleted. All of them (I think) are conveniently concatenated within User:Johnuniq/sandbox3 (with some annotations, too), within which any could be examined. Copying from there and pasting into new articles would not be optimal, as it would obscure the earlier editing history; as an admin I'd be delighted to resurrect any of the deleted articles if shown that there was an immediate prospect of its significant improvement (and I'm just one of many admins). -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There is no reason to delete. It's just making a lot of work for people, as these will be recreated eventually or a list created. Just merge them into a list now, or let this discussion drop and let other editors consider them individually. I agree with Andrew Davidson, going through these in a 7 day period is just silly. And because a unit is antiquated is not a reason to delete. JTdaleTalk~ 15:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Into what list? What makes you think that an "ocean-ton", for example, ever existed as a unit? Has anyone suggested that antiquation/antiquity/obsolescence is a reason to delete? -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ocean ton clearly existed as it is documented in numerous sources including Transactions of the Institute of Marine Engineers; Air Transportation; Automotive Handbook; Pulp & Paper Magazine of Canada, &c. The size and context indicate that this is another name for a unit which I have just been cleaning up — the shipping ton, known also as the freight ton or measurement ton. That one was new to me but I understand it well now. What we should obviously do with the ocean ton is merge it into the shipping ton. Deletion is neither necessary nor appropriate for this. Such cleanup is what's needed for most of these pages but AFD is not cleanup. See also WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, read the reference you gave, and compare with the contribution culled from Cardarelli, which tells us a 'truss' is a unit of weight equal to 16.329324168 kg, at least to the nearest microgram. A truss is actually a bundle of straw (perhaps of a particular shape), which was sold with a particular weight, which varied at different times and places (the SOED tells us). The problem is not that the concept of a "truss" does not exist, it is that there is nothing in the current article of any value with regard to the topic. Anyway, I think this well-intentioned AfD is hopeless, so I'm going to try to avoid spending any more time on it. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sarpler. An historical measure for wool. See, e.g., [9] and [10]. Recommend Keep all per WP:BEFORE with no prejudice to renominating individual articles for deletion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the arguments I made when I wrote WP:Articles for deletion/Salt spoon (unit) and arguments by people above, especially Hoary. Same group of articles created by a single user that has no encyclopedic value other than dicdefs and unit conversions. Wikipedia isn't a cookbook, unit conversion machine, or anything else like that. No prejudice against creation into a mass list of obsolete units of measurement or transwiki into wiktionary. The source used, as many editors have pointed out, is unreliable. — kikichugirl speak up! 21:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cord-foot and some other of these appear to be notable. Others of these appear to be dicdefs. I am in the process of moving some of these to Wiktionary. pbp 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep to de-couple entries Some of these should be kept. Some should be redirected to one page. Some should be redirected to another. Some should be deleted. While they all have something in common that they are measurement stubs, the outcomes of the articles are unique. pbp 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. If any aren't long enough to stand on their own, you can just put them in an list article for old measurement systems, or if that's too long, divide it into separate articles by nation. This is clearly encyclopedic. Dream Focus 01:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The real problem with keeping all of these is that their all based off of one source that is shown to be unreliable, and finding secondary sources on most of them is near impossible. Every article that has gone up for deletion by itself has reached a "Delete" consensus for this reason. Johnuniq has already put a tremendous amount of time (with the help of a few other editors) determining which of these articles created by Shevonsilva should be merged and which should be deleted, and I trust his judgement. Please take a look at the permalink he references in his nomination to see that this AfD was not created haphazardly, these terms wont be useful to anyone, if any secondary or tertiary sources can be found then maybe there is a small argument for merging them into a list. War wizard90 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the source you mention has not been shown to be unreliable. The nay-sayers have cherry-picked some flaws in its presentation but the essential facts such as the existence of these units all seem valid. The aum, for example, is clearly a European size of barrel which was commonly used for for Rhenish wine such as hock. Its size was similar to that of the English tierce. This is perfectly reasonable encyclopedic content and the work required here is to cleanup and integrate this content with our other coverage of such units, which is extensive. Peremptorily deleting all this work because we don't like the editor or the source is not our policy, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. ... At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew D., For at least the second time in this AfD, you appear to suggest that this AfD is personal: that its nominator is, or supporters are, out to get an editor. I wonder if this is what you mean. I for one don't mind being called a dick (or merely a "nay-sayer"), or even being armchair-diagnosed as suffering neurological damage: I proudly recycle some of these accolades on my user page. I'm less happy about being accused of vindictiveness. May I ask you to "AGF" for all concerned (unless of course you present evidence to negate such an assumption). ¶ Yes, you're accurately quoting a policy page. But note that it's talking about incompleteness and poor writing, not about dubious content. We can certainly argue over the degree of dodginess here. You have one or two good sources; I have a couple myself (cited in the userspace pages linked to above); others should have one or other of the various other reference books on units; I'd say that WP:TNT is called for -- so far as this material (even if verified) is encyclopedic (most of it still looks more dictionary-like to me). NB: WP:TNT is a mere essay. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Olive-colored addition 13:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cited policy — WP:IMPERFECT — and Hoary counters with WP:TNT. But WP:TNT is not policy; it's not even a guideline. To blow everything up is quite contrary to our general way of working; it's disruptive, uncivil and damaging to the project's future. See Encyclopedia Frown. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry, I was going to add that TNT is a mere essay. Sleepiness stopped me. I've now made amends, and in olive lettering. And you'll see that I clearly acknowledged from the outset that WP:IMPERFECT was policy. As I see it, WP:IMPERFECT covers what's highly unsatisfactory but assumes that the material is sound. Here, I doubt that it is. You disagree. ¶ At the end of Imaginatorium's "Cardarelli" page (mentioned below), I list seven promisingly titled books. Do you have access to any of these? In order to help hereabouts, the other day I bought Koizumi's Zukan: Tan'i no rekishi-jiten (i.e. "An illustrated historical dictionary of units"), Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 1989 = 小泉袈裟勝、『図解 単位の歴史辞典』、東京：柏書房、1989年 (ISBN 4-7601-0512-3); but the history here has (understandably) a heavy bias to Japanese (and earlier Chinese) units: for old western units, Koizumi's earlier dictionary (a copy of which I bought years ago when dissatisfied with Cardarelli's earlier book) is often more useful. -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew D.: I would be grateful if you could comment on my Cardarelli page, perhaps on the talk page. Could you justify your claim that Cardarelli has not been shown to be unreliable. Japanese weight units as a particular example. Chinese units as another. Just about anything to do with England for another. "Unreliable" does not mean 100% wrong, it means that there are enough errors and infelicities, that without a corroborating source, we have no idea whether it is true or not. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page seems to be improper, contrary to WP:ATTACK, in that its purpose is "to disparage ... its subject". It seems quite weak to the point of being absurd as it starts by saying "I do not have a copy of the book itself...". If we look for independent commentary on Cardarelli and his works, we find that:
  1. His work is recommended by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) — see their FAQ.
  2. A review by Robert W. Cahn seems quite positive
  3. His encyclopedia's ratings on Amazon are unanimous — 5 stars
  4. A review in Ultramicroscopy by Peter W. Hawkes seems quite effusive.
You see, looking for such sources is the way we're supposed to work here. We're not in the business of doing original research or writing our own opinionated reviews. If Imaginatorium wants to do that sort of writing, he should please try Goodreads. Andrew D. (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. Do you think that Cardarelli's table of Japanese units of weight is something one could rely on? Either you do or you don't -- you appear to take the line that however jumbled up something is, as long as someone else somewhere else says it's OK, that's all you are interested in. There are plenty of effusive reviews of Cardarelli, but they all say the same sort of thing: here is a vast mass of obviously useful stuff to do with SI units, and so on, and look! there's "some delightful 'obsolete units'" which might be a "godsend for compilers of crosswords". They do not go on to look carefully at all of this "delightful godsend" and notice that it is largely recycled sub-anecdote. But you do not think it is even appropriate to check whether something makes sense, you just read the reviews: is that right?
My page is a "critique": I have found a combination of error and simplistic infelicity, and I am trying to make a reasoned summary of it. (I confess I do not fully understand the WP:OR thing, if it means one may copy factoids from here and there as long as one's brain is switched off.)
Is there any chance you can explain your bizarre response to my suggestion on your talk page? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I saw some Amazon ratings earlier, and they appeared very fishy. Unanimous ***** reviews, but all but about one reviewer had reviewed precisely one book. Hmm. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of the five reviews on Amazon.com, only one is for Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures: Their SI Equivalences and Origins. The other four are for his earlier book, Scientific Unit Conversion: A Practical Guide to Metrication.[11] NebY (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of AFD is explained at WP:AFD: "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. ... Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." As there is much need for improvement here, I have been bold and made a start at truss (unit). I have not finished yet but it's coming along nicely. Deletion would disrupt such work and so would be inefficient. Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or REDIRECT/Merge to the appropriate and suggested destinations. Nominator provides sounds reasoning, and the original source for this information is suspect at best. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all including truss. I don't see that any of these passes the GNG --Guerillero | My Talk 09:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only looked at Belshazzar (unit) to get a take for what this AfD is about. That one and the related biblically-named wine bottle sizes should be redirected to Wine_bottle#Sizes. I would want the redirect to catch searches.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Belshazzar and Balthazar are alternate English spellings, though I'm no master of Hebrew transliteration.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, but I searched for sources before the AfD and it really does appear that the bottle is generally spelled "Balthazar". Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to their relevant lists of units. Of course there is nothing to be gained in having these obscure units of measurements covered as a multitude of almost contentless microstubs. But tables of conversions between units of measurement are exactly the kind of thing one would expect to see in an encyclopedia. Reyk YO! 12:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, at least for the time being, and give them a bit more chance to grow. Why is there such a huge rush to delete them anyway? Truss (unit) clearly passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (or merge to relavant target) and arguments per user:Andrew Davidson. Christian75 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. No useful purpose is served by deleting these articles and the encyclopaedia would be poorer without them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Truss (unit) is almost the worst sort of article we have, a throwback to 2006 or something. It consists mainly of massive quotes from public domain sources that, because of their antiquity, tend to use stilted language. We long ago began to deprecate copy/pasting huge chunks of text from Britannica (1911) etc and I really don't see that we gain from adopting the lazy approach here. Quote-dumping to this extent also forces us to breach WP:MOSQUOTE because we have to deploy links all over the place, contrary to the guideline. If we cannot find a way meaningfully to discuss the unit without a lot of reliance on century-old texts etc, we're probably well into the realm of DICDEF because, seemingly, any notability lies in antiquity. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. Though you do have a point. Actually, two or more. Still, I prefer Truss (unit) to the other (non) articles listed above. Any comments on those? -- Hoary (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS issues seem irrelevant to the question of deletion — just clutching at straws :) Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as redirects to a merged list.--00:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ....comment by KTo288
Er, KTo288, to what would you like them merged? (List of miscellaneous obscure units?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever people are happy with, how about List of obsolete units.--KTo288 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility, but hundreds if not thousands more could be added to a list so titled. That again is a possibility, but it would demand a lot of work. Is anyone likely to want to do this? And if they did, would the result be more helpful than individual articles in Wiktionary? -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the units were considered carefully prior to this AfD, and this shows why statohm was not listed. For many of the pages listed here, the problem with keeping them is that the only information presented is bogus. Consider Belshazzar—all reasonable sources say the wine bottle is named "balthazar", and Wikipedia should not amplify dubious assertions. "Belshazzar" is a reasonable possibility, but it is not the word actually used. What about Ship load which defines the unit with five significant figures—per my note here, that is highly misleading. If a source were available, something useful might be written, but keeping the current text in a list of units would be misleading and give undue weight to a dubious factoid. Is there any evidence that Customary stone was a unit and not a misunderstanding?

    I have just reviewed all the pages listed at this AfD. Each is dubious and has no encyclopedic information beyond a claimed dictionary definition, except for Truss (unit) (expanded by Andrew Davidson). While acknowledging Sitush's comment above, I will withdraw Truss from this AfD because the article as it is now should be considered separately. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for withdrawing truss (unit) but please note that I picked that one for improvement almost at random. I also improved the statohm page too and, while that was more scientific, there was a lot less to say about it. Many of the units we have here were used in traditional forms of commerce and trade and so have some interesting background to explain. I wasn't familiar with the ship load but, now I look at it, I find that it was part of a system of measures of coal. This was especially well established in the trade between Newcastle and London which was substantial and lasted for centuries. In this, the scale of measures was:
4 pecks = 1 bushel
3 bushels = 1 sack
12 sacks = 1 chaldron (a waggon load)
8 chaldrons = 1 keel (a barge)
20 keels = 1 ship load (a collier)
These measures weren't just arbitrary, depending on the size of the equipment, but were used as the basis for payment of prices, wages, taxes and charges and so were subject to regulation either by law or commercial practice. The details turn out to be quite fascinating and we have a substantial article about the keelmen which makes wonderful reading. I was born in the North East myself and so am now delighted to understand what the famous song, "The Keel Row", was about. We shouldn't be deleting this stuff — we should be knitting it into our coverage of these historically-significant traditions. Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment about ship load. I tried to find a source with encyclopedic information beyond the unit-converter websites that parrot each other. There are mentions such as your source, and there is no doubt that the sale of coal was regulated, and sack, room, keel and ship load were probably defined in an act of parliament. Seach Acts...1780–1800 for "coal" to see several possibilities (more here). I can't find it now, but when I examined the issue three weeks ago, I saw mention of units with the same names used in other places, notably the US where a keel (barge) and a ship load were a different size. The current articles give a precise definition but there is no hint of its basis, and no encyclopedic value. When someone finds a good source, a new article on all the sale-of-coal units can be created. The current articles violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing in WP:NOTDICTIONARY which supports the proposal to delete; quite contrary. That policy goes to a lot of trouble to explain the difference between encyclopedic stubs and dictionary-style entries about words. It emphasises this because "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." The key difference is, in fact, that the dictionary entry is focussed upon linguistics aspects of the word - its grammar, spelling, etymology, &c. The encyclopedic entry is focussed upon the underlying concept and the associated history and facts; the form of words is not so important. The policy doesn't dwell on the issue of deletion because it's position is "If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted." It seems clear that, in most of these cases, we have good scope to merge and/or rewrite and so deletion would not be appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key difference is, in fact, that the dictionary entry is focussed upon linguistics aspects of the word - its grammar, spelling, etymology, &c. Well, kind of; but do note that the cetera here include what's most important in most dictionaries (Wiktionary included) and (I'd guess) to most of their users: the meanings. (Meanwhile, grammatical information is shown by example. What's explicitly presented as grammatical information is very often misinformation.) Incidentally, Wikipedia has a lot of articles about words and phrases: Ebonics, fuck, kuwabara kuwabara, feminazi, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The motivation for deleting these articles is not WP:ANYTHINGATALL, it is that the material contributed by the problem editor is of unredeemingly low quality, consisting of a few boilerplate, ungrammatical sentences, and indiscriminate (and sometimes inaccurate, see Argentine units of measurement) copying of recycled factoids/fictoids from kitchen sink sources, combined with the problem editor's inability to discuss or even understand any of the problems put forward. But anyway, the "Dictionary" point is surely that a (paper) dictionary gives immediate access to information by headword, whereas an encyclopedia gives articles about topics, so that sometimes in a (paper) encyclopedia you have to hunt for the information. What this does mean is that if "bale" and "truss" are two words with the same referent, there should be one article, not two, or that if there are two articles they should be distinguished semantically, not by seemingly unrelated "headwords". Incidentally I found Geoff Pullum's piece immensely unpersuasive, and I think he is simply wrong about at least some of it, so dictionaries are safe for now. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or merge. Although the stubs may not be adequate to stand on their own, they clearly are of encyclopedic value. However, if they are are merged, redirects should be created to the relevant sections in new article to preserve existing wikilinks. --Alex Rosenberg (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (in numerical order)

1. About truss (unit): yes, this is certainly now an article, but it is no longer about the supposed "unit of weight" called a truss, but about what a truss is, which is a bundle of hay. Actually it's the same entity as a bale (at least in the cuboidal form in which I met it on a farm in the 1950s), and the relation between "trusses" and "bales" needs investigating. A quick look at the dictionaries suggests that "bale" replaced "truss" sometime in the middle of the 20C. 2. About statohm: this is of course a genuine unit, and as such a lot more needs to be said about it. But this needs someone who actually understands the esu and emu systems of units, and moreover, there is almost nothing to say about statohm which does not belong in a good article on electrostatic units, to which it should redirect. 3. About the AfD: It seems to me that with our resident member of the "Rescue Squad"[sic], and various drive-by "keep everything" brigade, there is no chance of a consensus to delete (and certainly not one to keep), so I urge Johnuniq to withdraw this AfD, and let us get on with discussing much smaller groups. For example, all derivative units of the Chain (unit) need to be sorted out together, and it needs to be worked out whether Ramsden's chain is really best served by a separate article. When there are two or three sorts of something, I think it is much more helpful for them to be discussed together in context. 52. About the wider world: Did you know that the Cornish metric[sic] gallon is 5 kg[sic]? So more work: Old Cornish units of measurement. What sort of "source" does one need to remove things like this...? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mm-hmm, that article on "old Cornish units" is fingerlicking good. (Volume and mass, it's all, like, relative, man.) See "Wikipedia celebrates 750 years of American independence" for commentary on material that is not dissimilar. (Oh, and were these reputed metric gallons, do you think?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All But Truss - none of these have adequate support or notability. PianoDan (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truss just happens to be the one out of this huge bundle which has received the most of my attention. I'm waiting on a book I've ordered for that topic so, in the meantime, I'm going to do a similar job for ship load as I have identified lots of good sources and just need some time to write around them now. This takes time, hours of time, but no-one is paying me to do this work and so, per WP:DEADLINE, it will get done when I can fit it in. All the zealous inspectors should please make themselves useful by doing some good article reviews instead of straining at these gnats. Per WP:IMPERFECT, this stuff is a work-in-progress and what's needed is some editors who are prepared to help in a constructive way. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (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) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 She_Has_a_Name#Critical_response. A contentious AfD, given the nominator's background and status--but this discussion has so many participants and so many arguments pro and con that we can't just close this as Speedy Keep because of a possible bad-faith nomination (WP:SK, item 2).

I see a consensus to delete the article, but to appease those who were so impressed by the sourcing, I will close this as "Redirect" and save the history to give those editors the option to merge selected content.

The argument that the article should not be deleted because it's a GA is not in itself sufficient, though it does point at adequate and reliable sourcing and things like that--at least four of the "keeps" use this argument. That it's a valid spinoff given the size could be a valid argument, but as DGG (and others) point out, that is a result of what can be called excessive coverage.

On the other hand, "deletes" argue that a. the content is already covered in the main article and b. is excessive. Wobzrem points out that there is much repetition in the three articles and that the language is "hyped-up", a point made by Tokyogirl, Squeamish Ossifrage, and others as well.

A more essential question is asked by Wikimedes: whether, if I may paraphrase, a collection of reviews adds up to a subject called "Critical Response to X". That is the more interesting philosophical question and it's a pity this mine wasn't delved into deeper.

But, to conclude, a preponderance of editors agree that the nomination is relevant, and that the content is excessive and promotional. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response to She Has a Name[edit]

Critical response to She Has a Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is approximately double the length of the main article on Death of a Salesman...a clear promotional puff piece that violates Wikipedia's notability standards. The main article for She Has a Name already includes an arguably over-lengthy section on critical response; it makes no sense to add such a superfluous secondary article on a regional production other than SEO. Along with the article "2012 Tour of She Has a Name," it seems to be in a linking loop with the original article, which is itself of simply vast length considered the level of notability of the subject. WP:PROMOTION, WP:N Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page includes, among other things, a lengthy "background" section regurgitating information already covered on the main page for the play as well. I can find no compelling reason for the existence of this article.Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does seem a little bit like overkill. Critical reception should be summed up for the most part and this looks like it's a blow by blow account of each and every critic's response to the play in every place it was performed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to She_Has_a_Name#Critical_response. It's expected that any play would have a large amount of coverage as far as critical reception goes. It's also expected that if a play is shown in more than one place, that each location will receive coverage. However that does not mean that we need coverage of the critical reception of every location- typically the other performances/venues should only be covered if the performances are so well covered, so notable that they'd warrant a separate section about that cast/venue. The only time we typically branch off into a new article is when the subject has received so many awards and nominations in so many notable areas that it would make sense to have a separate article - and they have to be very, very many. This play has not yet gotten that level of awards, so there's no reason for a spinoff at this point in time. I also need to note that it doesn't help that the article is liberally peppered with various POV statements like "Those who listened to readings of the script at the Scripts At Work workshop are said to have been stunned into silence." It's sourced but it's also written in such a way that it really comes across like the page was written by a very devoted fan of the play. This may not have been the case, but in the end this is just way, way overkill. We don't need a blow by blow account of every review ever written- a brief summary is more than enough and anything other than this can and should be on a fan wikia or a website for the play. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, since this is all already fairly well summed up on the pre-existing article for the play, I don't see where any of this really needs to be merged. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting would be acceptable, but since the only mainspace links to this article are from the play and its playwright, it's not particularly critical that we do so — once those links are removed, any likelihood of this actually being a potential search topic in its own right will completely vanish. Topic is already adequately summarized in the play's main article, without the need for anything here to be merged for further expansion — and the creator does have a bit of a history of going more than a bit overboard, giving this play a far deeper level of coverage (BLPs of actors whose only substantive claim of notability was having been an unnamed ensemble character in a production of it, etc.) than it actually warrants. No objection to redirect — though I'd actually prefer to just delete since the redirect isn't strongly needed and no content needs to be merged. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons Tokyogirl elaborates. Pax 07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tokyogirl. Also, for something that is so ridiculously in-depth, it's awfully selective about what perspectives they choose to show. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: The Good Topic is here, and only includes She Has a Name, the tour, and the critical response articles. Kooman himself and Ten Silver Coins are not a part of any Good or Featured topic, as they are not GA+ quality. --PresN 01:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PresN, please see this, at the bottom of the play articles.

{{Andrew Kooman}}

Sorry, I guess it's not a "good topic". But it is at the bottom of this article and the others. How can a reader tell which are in the "good topic"? EChastain (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Featured Topics delegate (and possibly the de facto director) here. To begin, to be considered a "good topic" less than 50% of the topic, which at minimum has to be three articles of the same topic, has to at Good Article status. 50% and over makes it become a Featured Topic. What you displayed wasn't a topic but a template, which is completely different. PresN showed that the main article, which is the play, the tour, and the critical response all make up a topic because they are all part of the same subject. If you have anymore questions about topics, please let me know. I'm just here because if this article and the tour article get deleted, merged, or both the topic is no more. GamerPro64 03:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GamerPro64 for the explanation. I couldn't figure it out on my own. EChastain (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Investigate The creator of this article Neelix, an editor with nine years experience and many articles to his name, retired a week ago stating he was 'the target of a very high level of trolling'. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns where he claims to be the 'subject of an attack'. It should be investigated if this AfD is not part of that alleged attack, certainly in light of the nominators editing record. It is a new account who started of last week by culling the content of another article which Neelix created (see 1, also note the preceding similar content culling by another newly created account Yakteur). It has the hallmarks of sockpuppetry. --Wolbo (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete or Merge - per others above, it is covered in the play. --DHeyward (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is something suspicious going on. Putting aside for a moment the temptation to jump on the bandwagon and join others in condemning the notability of this article and the other related AfD article, I am suspicious of the motivations of the nominator, who appears to be a sockpuppet (possibly of 184.161.25.16; Yaktaur, and Johnnydowns) and who may have a vendetta against articles like this one and a few others improved by Neelix (an experienced and prolific editor and administrator who improved other featured articles on this topic and who apparently retired after enduring wikihounding). As for the notability of this article, I believe it is notable because a) I have actually read the article and see how it expands on the knowledge in the section of its main article, b) it is part of a featured/good topic, c) it is a good article as recognized by other competent editors, and d) it is considered notable by the high number of external sources (I have spot checked them). Let us not cause an injustice against an undeserved article that was improved by a respected, now former, Wikipedian. Prhartcom (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking in here as I see I've been mentioned on both of these articles as a possible sockpuppet. Hope you'll all disregard that. I'm just getting into editing here and have no goals on the site outside improving syntax and concision. Thanks. John Bailey Owen (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (aka Johnnydowns)[reply]
  • Redirect to She_Has_a_Name#Critical_response - others hinted at it above, but with the main She Has a Name article sitting at only 29K of prose, I don't believe this meets the criteria for WP:SPINOFF. If the main article was at least 50K, I would consider "keep", and if it was at 70K I'd probably go with "strong keep, bad nom" (eg: Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix vs Jimi Hendrix) .... but it isn't, so I can't. Under the circumstances present, since the title is not what I would consider a typical search term, I would go with "delete". However, I believe I should make an exception here as in this case, merging the critical response back into the main article is probably going to be a lengthy and difficult task, and destroying properly reviewed prose and sources so editors cannot retrieve them (via the history) to do the merge is unhelpful - there's no rush to do it.
Upthread, a number of people have said "you can't delete this - it's a GA!" But, I also note that the GA review addressed these very concerns head on viz "I have no reason to believe, without prejudice to someone doing so at a future date (emphasis mine), this article with be merged with She Has a Name". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd failed to notice this one was also AFD'ed. Broadly speaking, see my comments at the other related AFD. Here, more specifically, the problem is undue weight. Start by looking at the critical response section in the parent article. That's a (relatively) reasonable survey of critics' responses to the play, generally in line with what we expect from similar articles. There was nothing special about the critical response to this play, nothing that made the critical response itself notable or distinctive. Yet this critical response article spends several thousand words conveying the reviews written about it. No media subject is given this treatment elsewhere in Wikipedia; nearly every newspaper in America has some sort of film review column or section, but each film release's critical response section is not spun off into an article of its own so that each of those voices can be presented; rather, we make editorial determinations as to which are significant and representative. That's the opposite of what was done here. And make no mistake, many of these critical response voices are from extraordinarily minor local news sources. That it is possible to assemble a facially well-written article thus doesn't make it compliant with policy; rather, it makes it promotional. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge leaning to keep. Article is of good quality, with enough sourceable information to show it warrants an article on its own. If it is deemed it doesn't then it should be merged into the main article, although i think that will make main article unwieldy. I do have concerns about the nominators motives as well, but others have went into that more than i care to.Blethering Scot 19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be great if all Reception section/articles were this detailed. This could be a valid WP:SPINOFF because if it was left in the main article it may be undue weight relative to the other sections (e.g. Plot summary, Productions, etc.). No objection to a merge because I think it is still in the realm of reasonableness in terms of weight with the other sections. Deleting because of too much detail is going in the wrong direction. maclean (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is absurd to think that 2 whole spinoff articles are warranted for such a minor play, especially when all the content on this page is summarized in a relatively more reasonable/restrained manner on the main article for the play itself. Even a merge isn't necessary since the 3 pages repeat each other so much, there's tons of overlap and what doesn't overlap is overly verbose hype language. There's just no need for this; it would be excessive even when applied to all but the few most famous and extensively covered works of literature or theater in history, and it's even more so when applied to such a fringe play. This is a total puff piece created by an editor who seems to have a history of creating similarly puffed-up, promotional features for his favorite celebrities, causes, and pieces of entertainment. Arguing that other content on Wikipedia is fanboy-created puff seems like an argument to delete other similar articles, not a reason to keep this one.Wobzrem (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is neither macro nor micro and this level of detail is incompatible with the balance of the original article. Whether or not the "2012 tour" should be merged is another issue entirely. This article has over 3000 words and the original article has 4900. In terms of pure size - they could be contained within, if not for what would occur. Other editors have come to this conclusion - Like Maclean. The deletes show that the purpose of AFD is not understood as actual deleting removes the history where as redirect or the more appropriate merge are the norms here. By all accounts, this is a deep examination of the play and is still a summary style presentation and worthy of inclusion. The balance and deeper examination is another reason to keep it separate - so readers of the original article can pursue the topic in more depth if they choose to. Overall it is a well developed set of articles in an imperfect and incomplete encyclopedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge in the short term and request that policies and/or guidelines regarding the required notability for spinout articles of the type of this and its related articles are created. I said in the recently closed deletion discussion of the related article that there might be grounds for more than one article on plays or other works which have had multiple performances, and proposed that one of the more basic spinout articles would be one discussing critical reception of the work and performances, and this article could reasonably be made on of that type. I guess myself the three obvious main and most justifiable articles on plays might be the main article a list of performances, including the where and when information, significant casting and performance information, awards and recognition, and that sort of thing, and a critical reception article, including the bulk of the material on the critical reception in general and maybe some extended material on particularly noteworthy performances. But that would probably best be handled at the relevant policy/guideline page. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started discussion at the talkpage of Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Notability of theatrical performances? regarding the notability of theatrical performances. Having not actually reviewed the references myself, the fact that others have said the article seems to be almost exclusively based on individual reviews themselves, rather than an sources secondary to the reviews, raises questions regarding whether this actually does meet notability. Having said that, I sure as hell can see a wikibook being put together based on the material in all three articles, and any other articles directly relevant. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. well sourced, and a GA status article. That says it all. This should not be deleted or merged. does not fail WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and dismiss calls to either delete or merge. The item is a good example of how to produce high-quality spin-off articles from high-quality main articles. Why this is continually being hounded down, I know not, perhaps someone has an agenda...... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If the article is about the critical response, shouldn’t there be secondary sources discussing the critical response? I looked through the entire Reviews section, and it appears to consist entirely of primary sources, that is the sources are the critical responses themselves. I understand that a critical response section of play or movie article in most cases will need to use the reviews themselves in discussing the critical response, but it seems that for a stand-alone article, there usually need to be secondary sources to establish notability. Is there to be an exception in the case of critical response articles?--Wikimedes (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absurd over coverage. We sometimes do split these out for famous works, but there isn't enough here to split out. I think in practice "famous" is the right criterion for such split out articles, except in the cases where the critical response is more important than the work itself. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article about the play already has a section on this. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and when sections become too large to be hosted by their main article, we create a spin-off article, like this, which is of high quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SS. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, reads like something a PR department would release. Well sourced WP:FANCRUFT. NE Ent 11:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on too many primary sources (the actual reviews), lacking in encyclopedic tone, and for overcoverage of a minor play. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 21 January 2015 (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) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Helen Clark[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mary Helen Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She does not seem notable at all; merely the headmistress of a small religious secondary school in provincial Brazil who has achieved nothing significant. I don't think having her papers in a library makes her notable, unless there is clear Wikipedia policy about this. It seems to me that there are millions of headmasters/headmistresses of small, non-notable secondary schools globally--are we really going to create a page about each of them?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Helen Clark (permanent link).

    Pinging the previous AfD's participants: User:Magnolia677, User:David Eppstein, User:Hegvald, User:LaMona, User:Bearian, and User:Nikilada. Cunard (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No doubt she was a worthy person, but notability has not been shown. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for further information to support her notability turned up only a few brief references, the text of which are wholly or partially incorporated into the article already. There's not enough evidence to support notability. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While she appears to have been someone who kept records while helping others, I can't see anything to show that she meets WP:GNG. There are some secondary sources used in the article: reference 1 simply confirms personal details, ref 12 confirms she spoke about her missionary work, ref 9 acknowledges her family's donation of her letters to their collection. The annual reports 2 and 5 confirm where she worked but no other details. Reference 13 shows her correspondence is kept as a collection, although it is all described as being to her family. None of these appears to establish any notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To my mind, the "headmistress" aspect of this is irrelevant (and in fact her title seems to have been "principal"), and even if it were it would not establish a precedent requiring us to include headmistresses by default. The potential notability is in the development of an education program that was considered by some to be of note, and actions during a disaster, which led to an award. This is a difficult case because 1) it takes place in a distant place, therefore finding a recording of events in North American or European publications is unlikely 2) we really have very little information to go on. This may have been simply a normal religious mission - unfortunately, we do not know, and if there is an answer it is in her papers, which would constitute original research. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thank you for your comment. May I just add: If the article was created because of novel pedagogy (doubtful), an academic article in a journal of pedagogical studies would be the appropriate venue. If it was created because she was a headmistress or missionary like millions of people globally, this AFD seems appropriate. As for the "disaster" event, is it considered by the Methodist church to be one of three "miracles" making her what Catholics would call a "saint"? If that's not the case, I am not convinced that it is relevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: User:LaMona: Are you for deletion as the article stands today? This is the second attempt and we shouldn't have long discussions; just let people vote.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There is no direct evidence, as noted above, of her notability. However, as discussed in the last AfD, that Vanderbilt University took and is storing her papers is circumstantial evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The reason these letters are stored is that "The letters provide first-hand accounts of Latin-American foods, behaviors, language and customs of the people and the politics of the times." [14] It is her own account of everyday life that appears to form the basis for these letters being stored as a special collection. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nom withdrawn/Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dardani (village)[edit]

Dardani (village) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no reliable source about the existing of this village. The census data cited as a source does not mention it. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When plugging in the coordinates, there does seem to be a section of Ferizaj called "Dardanis." [15] --Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No proof of existence. It seems that ancient Dardania was situated where Kosovo now is, and a Municipium Dardanicum was located therein, and confusion results therefrom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep. The Google results for this village, while either in Albanian or not of particularly high quality, still seem good enough to at least come close to meeting WP:GEOLAND (one of our easier standards to meet, of course). It seems to be a verifiably inhabited linear settlement to the east of Ferizaj. From what I am seeing, it looks likely that it has been renamed relatively recently, with the previous Albanian name being Tankosiq and the preferred name in Serbo-Croat still being Tankosić - if so, there are certainly enough results under the former name to meet WP:GEOLAND. As the apparent previous name looks as if it was in honour of a Serbian soldier indirectly linked to the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, one can understand why the Kosovars would want to change it - but I haven't yet found anything directly confirming the change of name. PWilkinson (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have pretty liberal standards when it comes to settlement articles: if it can be shown that the place exists and isn't just a subdivision (housing estate) or some other commercial, rather than legal, entity, an article seems warranted to me. Google Maps (at 42°22′45″N 21°17′20″E / 42.37917°N 21.28889°E / 42.37917; 21.28889) has the place labeled both as Dardani and as Танкосић, so PWilkinson's analysis above seems essentially correct. (There is even an online petition on—I think—whether the place's Facebook page should be named Tankosić or Dardani.) Since we don't have an article on the place under the name Tankosić or the name Tankosiq, this one should be kept, and the question of the most appropriate name of the article can be hashed out on its talk page. The fr.wp page is at Tankosić, and I'm sure that most available sources use that name for the village; whether the name has been "officially" changed would require some investigation. Deor (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I just noticed that Google Maps doesn't have the village labeled at all when one follows the coordinate link I provided above. I was using GeoLocator, which seems to have a somewhat different version of the Google map as its base map. Try this link. (Or select the Google "Terrain" map from the GeoHack page.) Deor (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep - Looking on Google Maps it says "Lagje e Dardanis" / "Zllatar" so I'm assuming it exists ?, Perhaps Google goes by commonname with places hence "Dardani" not appearing, so that could be a possibility, Also we have Dardania (Europe) which looks to be related one way or another..... –Davey2010Talk 21:16, 13 January 2015 (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) 17:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is actually the village called Tankosić/Tankosiq [16]. I'm withdrawing my deletion request. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Luxemburg[edit]

Emil Luxemburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources attest notability. - Biruitorul Talk 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly association football tournaments in 2015[edit]

Friendly association football tournaments in 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable friendly games that do not need their own article. JMHamo (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Friendly association football tournaments in 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Friendly association football tournaments in 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that NENAL effectively exists in WP:LISTN and WP:LSC/WP:CSC. I don't find a seemingly indiscriminate list of friendly footy tournaments to be particularly notable. — Jkudlick tcs 06:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2015; keep the others. No point in having 2015, since it's just getting going. The others, however, are fine. They represent a good example of the differences between lists and navboxes: navboxes should just provide the links and any necessary navigational information, while lists can (and in this case, do) provide additional information in a useful and structured format. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per GiantSnowman and Jkudlick. I might also add that NOTDIRECTORY and NOTSTATSBOOK may play a role here, too, in the absence of any meaningful text to provide context to these lists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion of these articles would effectively mean that the yearly templates at the bottom of each article would be relied upon in order to maintain a 'list' of these tournaments. While I don't have a problem with this so much, I'm concerned that the templates could end up in a bit of a bad state. Already, in fact, if I want to see all the tournaments in the 'Friendly tournaments 2013' template, then I can only just manage to get them to fit into my computer screen. I don't think that this is the best way to use a template.
We could just say that we should cut the number of tournaments displayed in the template, and that would solve the problem. However, in these particular circumstances, we cannot prioritise any tournament over another due to the fact that they all carry the same competitive weight. This is a unique aspect of dealing with friendly tournaments. All of the matches played in the tournaments noted in these articles and templates are of the same value, as they are friendlies. However, the fact that they are tournaments gives them some form of notability. The problem that this creates is that it is impossible to remove (or add) any tournament, without doing the same for all the others.
This leads me to ask about what tournaments the templates are for (assuming, still, that the templates are our way of keeping track of these tournaments after the articles are deleted).
Are they for all the tournaments? This would make sense, seeing as all the tournaments mean the same, as I have just outlined.
Are they for tournaments which have separate articles on Wikipedia for each year they take place?
Is a tournament noteworthy enough to be included in the template if it just has one Wikipedia article that covers all the years that it has been running, and only has redirects to that article for the individual years?
At the moment, we've got a mixture of all of these kinds of things going on. This means that some templates have red links. Some templates have redirects. Some templates include tournaments not listed on the articles that are proposed to be deleted here, while at the same time omitting tournaments that are listed in the articles.
It is just all very confused. It doesn't help, of course, that the templates can get rather quite large.
I just think that what we need is clearer criteria for inclusion, and I think that it's important that this issue is raised before the deletion of the articles.
Maybe this is something that could be discussed in a WikiProject environment, if it hasn't been done so already. In any case, I think that it would make sense to do a number of things:
  • Firstly, remove the tabular structure of the templates. It does look nice, and it is very clear. However, this will always leave the possibility for the templates to become incredibly large. I think that we could manage without the date and the location, and just have a flag and a link.
  • Secondly, adopt the following criteria for inclusion:
  • Only include tournaments which involve three teams or more. This makes them tournaments, rather than just branded exhibition matches.
  • Only include tournaments which feature teams from at least two different football associations. This makes them international, rather than opening up the templates to swathes of domestic showdowns.
Now, what I'm suggesting might actually increase the number of tournaments featured in these templates. This is only because the current templates are missing out various tournaments, however.
Hopefully what I have suggested includes measures for dealing with any further potential increases in the sizes of the templates.
I'm aware that, if followed, the criteria that I have proposed would leave a number of red links in the templates. However, red links are already visible in some of these templates, and I don't necessarily see them as a bad thing. As I said, I'm not sure how much sense there would be in excluding tournaments with red links, seeing as all the matches in all these tournaments carry the same weight.
This leads me on to question whether there should be similar criteria for the individual tournament articles. If more red links do crop up, then I don't really see why articles should not then be created. It would be weird for some tournaments to continue having their own articles, while other tournaments continue in not having anything. We need a more consistent approach and some guidance as to whether articles should be created or not.
Before I finish, I should just mention that, in relation to the articles being discussed for deletion here, then I don't believe in the argument that it is a good idea to have the articles because they allow for the record of the individual teams involved to be studied. It should be remembered that, in this specific case, the teams listed in these articles have no relation to each other, and so it is not necessary to see them all on the same page. For example, no purpose is served by the Third place column, as all the teams listed in it were from completely different tournaments. RedvBlue 02:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per WP:NOTDIR. A list of inherently non-notable competitions. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – ridiculous articles. No connection whatsoever between the different tournaments. Not grouped together anywhere outside of Wikipedia. A good dose of WP:OR. C679 14:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanna Fletcher[edit]

Giovanna Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable author. According to world cat, Billy &Me book is in only 8 2libraries, the others is 32 and 26. The only 3rd party ref is about her boyfriend. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No WP:Notability. No WP:Reliable sources GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PIBA warriors[edit]

PIBA warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a cricket team that plays in the league (no article for the league) of a state with a population of 240,000. Most of the team appear to be under 20. 19 ghits found - none I could describe as a reliable independent source and a few being mere copies of the article. Peridon (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, all 13 team members listed appear to be bowlers. That is rather unusual, so far as I am aware. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable team. I couldn't find anything that indicates notability.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 A-League results[edit]

2014–15 A-League results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated after discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#A league results and earlier AfD for 2014–15 Premier League results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014-15 Premier League Results. The information is not notable enough for its own article and the info can be found on the individual season article for each team. Wikipedia is not a collection of stats. QED237 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is exactly the same but for previous season, if one should go then both should go:

2013–14 A-League results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Forgot to sign QED237 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - not a repository of statistics. As the nom points out, "the info can be found on the individual season article for each team". C679 14:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, almost all Australian sports leagues (not just related to association football; check out AFL and NBL season articles) have a stats dump of results either on a separate list article, or on the main season article. –HTD 14:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - NOTSTATS. Anything pertinent should be covered within the season articles. GiantSnowman 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Per above and other AFD's. Kante4 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I am also the same with the above 2 and that was a silly thing by me to create the 2013-14 A-League results Rugby Sevens are coming 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both – There is already a results table in the main 2014–15 A-League article. And as pointed out above, information about fixtures and results can be found for each club. Arbero (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I was responsible for removing the results from the main 2014–15 A-League article, at the time I expressed my preference in the talk page for keeping the fixtures on the relevant club season pages. Rjbsmith (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - The season articles are quite simply redundant and hardly ever updated. The results page allows all of the results in one single round to be viewed in one place rather than forcing someone to look through 10 seperate articles. A results table is highly confusing and gives no indication of the round in which each game was played. Walsh11111 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know this sounds dumb, but could we possibly keep this page active until the end of the AFC Asian Cup? It seems as though a lot of the usual editors seem to have been inactive during this time. The reason I ask for this page to stay active for a little longer is that this page is often kept more up-to-date than each team's season articles, so we may be deleting information that isn't included in the team season summary articles at the moment. - J man708 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Walsh11111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent Billy (talk • contribs)
  • I think previous seasons had the results included in the article - that should probably be repeated here. So I'd advocate that rather than deleting the article, it might be better just to redirect it to the main season one, so that if/when someone merges the content to the main article, the history is kept in good order? Daniel (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel: I believe (but not 100% sure) that it has been decided in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football not to list matches in league season articles, we have a results-section for all results and that is enough. The detailed matches should be at the individual club articles so we dont duplicate info everywhere. This results article might have been a way to get around having the results on the article so someone opened a new article instead. The Football-project MOS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season does not list a section with the matches. If they get reinserted at the article again a new discussion will probably open up. QED237 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, appreciate it. Why are the results in the same format as this still in the first 8 seasons of the A-League, may I ask? Daniel (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, maybe no one had the time and/or cared enough to go back in history and remove it. I tried quckly to find the discussion but could not find it so I might also remember wrong and it might be okay to insert on the article again, but I have a strong feeling this has been discussed. QED237 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No dramas, thanks again for the info (my sporadic activity leads me to needing to lean on people to clue me in about discussions like these!). I'll be honest, I'll probably be bold and add these results back into the articles if it's closed as redirect (which would be my preference and save me undeleting the history to do it), and then if it gets removed per a Wikiproject discussion with the other 8 seasons, then that'll be that. Daniel (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as this information can be found elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - WP:NOTSTATS covers it. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for awhile before deciding - as J man708 states above, the usual editors potentially inactive on this, and need the oppotunity to contribute to the debate. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think pinging them might be a good idea. @Chuq, Hack, 2nyte, TheSelectFew, Ciaran106, and Datasmack: Get over your Asian Cup hangovers and come give your thoughts. :P - J man708 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What if we were to add prose to the article before every round?--2nyte (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, fixture lists are generally not included in English football season pages due to copyright issues. There really isn't that issue here. I don't see why the results, in a more concise and accessible form couldn't be readded to the season article. I would suggest a tabular form such as that used at 2014–15 Manchester United F.C. season. Hack (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as a clear WP:NOTSTAT violation. I don't see a problem with having the information in the season article(s), as suggested above, and I feel like that could be the best outcome here. Tavix |  Talk  06:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into 2014–15 A-League article, or Keep. Really, the best place for information like this is Wikidata, but there is a bit of a learning curve to contribute to that project. There are only 30-odd rounds with 5 matches per round so the volume of content is nothing like the English leagues. I support adding prose before each round with notable events from each round as well. -- Chuq (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Info can be found on the teams' pages. Consensus on a similar page for the Premier League led to deletion, so this article, on a league with far less stature than the PL, should be deleted. Aerospeed (Talk) 00:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wishes to create a redirect to the group here please feel free. Michig (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASAP Yams[edit]

ASAP Yams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability; the redirect to ASAP Mob should be restored or it should be deleted. GiantSnowman 12:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#A7 no indication of importance or significance JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Native bengalureans[edit]

Native bengalureans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this page for speedy deletion, but it was removed by another user. This article fails WP:WEB and there are no reliable sources to indicate notability of this Facebook group. APK whisper in my ear 08:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom. Should have been CSD'd. Gbawden (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The removal was, IMO, correct. It should have been a prod. However, as the article now stands, I would think an A7 might well succeed. If not, it should be deleted here as non-notable. Peridon (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)i[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you wish: A7--"unremarkable club". Drmies (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is unsourced, Google Search doesn't reveal anything useful, and there's not really a way to de-orphan this article. In addition, the creator (User:Benglur hudga) has only made contributions to this very subject, so we have an SPA on our hands, and possibly a COI as an extension from that, as a google search of his name turned up a Facebook account with that name that's a member. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and leave a redirect to Oncology. Michig (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oncoscience[edit]

Oncoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (PubMed Central accepts all OA medical journals), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article was dePRODded because it is included in PubMed Central and PubMed. PMC is not selective, including all OA journals within its subject range (excluding only the most egregiously bad ones). PubMed automatically includes all PMC journals. The selective parts of PubMed are Index Medicus and MEDLINE. This journal is in neither. Therefore the PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable journal per nominator's analysis. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Plausible search term for oncology, perhaps? I'll go with redirect there. I have no objection to deleting the current content first, if that's what editors want to do.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to oncology BakerStMD T|C 17:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creating a redirect to oncology after deletion seems like a good idea. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another odd deletion that leads me to ask if there is a deletion contest somewhere. The journal cannot time travel. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, but this is about the weirdest comment I have seen in an AfD. What do you mean with "The journal cannot time travel"? And why exactly do you think that this journal meets our notability criteria? (Apparently you think that, given the "keep" !vote). As my mind-reading abilities have recentlyu been disabled, I'd appreciate any clarification. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your time travel abilities seem as sound as your desire to both own and delete this article, so I leave this one to you. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katti batti marathi movie[edit]

Katti batti marathi movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased movie with no sources and no evidence of notability. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Kalam Azad (lecturer)[edit]

Abul Kalam Azad (lecturer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources provided are non-reliable. insignificant coverage, PR profile, public directory and some link just list the name of the subject in theirs teacher/news presenter list. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note, article was created by a block-evading sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aldota), and there have been no substantive changes since that editor's work, so CSD/G5 could also apply. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Tagged the article with CSD G5 - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging. But that's not a type of AfD closure (the afd endpoint isn't "tag for deletion by some other means", but actual deletion or decision that it's not to be deleted), so I undid your NAC. DMacks (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tu'i Tonga Fefine[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tu'i Tonga Fefine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a speedy renomination. My previous concern was: Verification search shows many sources, but it is ambiguous if they significantly cover the subject or if they are reliable at all.

Joe Decker was the only one to comment. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. *tips hat* --j⚛e deckertalk 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect or keep From the small sniopet I can see [17] is reliable enough to suggest that there is some verifiability to the title, [18] verifies who abolished the title, and [19] looks like it's reliable and signficant coverage. There's enough there I expect it's notable, it might not be, either way, combined coverage might have some advantages, but I do think, from what is admittedly a short review, that the title at least warrants a redirect and a bit of content at the target. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Moravcik[edit]

Martin Moravcik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight. Even a Google News search brings up a whopping one article with his name in it — and even that article isn't really substantively about him, but just namechecks his existence in a sidebar. Nothing written or sourced here gets him over either WP:BIO or WP:GNG, so delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My news search brought up, aside from that one article, a bunch of articles about a Slovakian cyclist by this name, not this person. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimmy Page#Guitars. Consensus is that this doesn't merit an article. Redirects are cheap though and this one has support of two contributors here. Michig (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Page Signature Les Paul[edit]

Jimmy Page Signature Les Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is essentially a badly-written sales pitch for the Gibson Jimmy Page Signature models. Not only is it not written in accordance with Wikipedia's quality standards, it is filled with inaccuracies. In accordance with WP:NOTCATALOG, I nominate this page for deletion as it sets a precedent to include every Gibson special edition model with its own article. That is for Gibson's website, not Wikipedia. Stratocaster27t@lk 04:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect might make sense, but not to that page. There is already adequate coverage of this guitar at Gibson Les Paul#Jimmy Page, so if it is decided to go with a redirect that would probably be the logical place. The entry at Jimmy Page#Guitars is about his vintage instruments used in the past. --Stratocaster27t@lk 16:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Farther down in the section, it covers this one too. Pax 22:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, there is adequate coverage in both areas. Which brings us to the original point of this discussion: That the JP Signature page is not needed in the first place. Right now we have 3x redundancy. Stratocaster27t@lk 08:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--nothing worthwhile here to merge, not a helpful search term, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Jimmy_Page#Guitars. As a budding self taught plunker, I can easliy see this as a search term. Anything connected to Page is a valid search item/term. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SOFT DELETE. Article may be restored by any administrator on request. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald C. Anderson[edit]

Gerald C. Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article only contains primary sources and I can't find anything else out there to get this subject past WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An accomplished individual who appears to have held a number of upper level positions in important organizations, however, I'm not sure that there is anything that puts him over the top per Wikipedia's guidelines. I did find non-trivial coverage in a secondary source from his alma mater here. - Location (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article on the website or in the alumni magazine of the university that a person attended would be acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after enough reliable sourcing had been added to cover off the notability issue — but because he attended that university, and the university might very well grant such "coverage" to alumni who have accomplished something that doesn't pass our inclusion rules, it's not an independent source that can contribute anything toward the question of establishing whether they have the necessary notability to qualify for an article. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would accept that this person has a valid and encyclopedic claim of notability if the quality of reliable sourcing were there to properly support it, but no position — not even the presidency of the United States — confers the right to keep a Wikipedia article that relies entirely on primary sources with no actual media coverage anywhere in the citation mix. And if the best anybody can turn up for additional sourcing is an article in the alumni magazine of the university he attended, then that's still not enough to cover the gap between where the sourcing is and where it needs to be. Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a better-sourced version in the future. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Shewchuk[edit]

Jamie Shewchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable athlete. Unable to find more than trivial coverage in sources. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Professional lacrosse players are not seemingly as "notable" as pro hockey or baseball players, but NLL fans over the past 8 years know his name. He's no superstar but Shewchuk has had a solid 8-year career in the National Lacrosse League. There are many pages for lacrosse players that haven't played as long. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basic notability requirements are the same for every BLP article, regardless of how "popular" their sport is. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF with regard to your comment about the other lacrosse players (these articles might themselves get deleted in the future as well if they fail WP:N). Primefac (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly possible that he has enough notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article — but this article, as written, isn't demonstrating that. Nobody — not an athlete, not a politician, not a musician, not a writer, not anybody at all in any field of endeavour — gets to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article on Wikipedia just because they exist; what gets a person into Wikipedia is the ability to cite reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass one or more of our inclusion criteria. But with only a single deadlinked press release on the website of the league he plays in for "referencing", that hasn't been demonstrated at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a good version, citing real sources, can be written — but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then wouldn't this be a good place for a "Template:Refimprove", and then a delete if the articles was not improved? In the meantime, I will rewrite the article and add some references. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (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) 22:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI I have updated the article to include more information and statistics as well as references. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although this is a bit of a borderline case. This is a professional lacrosse player who has received some recognition, such as the Rookie of the Week Award, and a search turned up a few results (albeit somewhat shaky). I'm not completely convinced that it should be deleted, though. I'd also settle for a redirect to the team itself. --Biblioworm 05:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Cardillo[edit]

Elizabeth Cardillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creation of a blocked sockpuppet who created dozens of pageant contestant stubs, nearly all of which fail WP:BIO/WP:NMODEL (this article included). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie for a group nomination of several others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 04:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just like the rest that need to be deleted. Fails WP:NMODEL. Let Donald Trump buy his advertising, not build a massive list of links here. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Have already !voted to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie, along with the other cookie-cutter articles created by same account. No prejudice against recreating if someone has better sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not notable outside of one event --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Dwomoh[edit]

Elizabeth Dwomoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creation of a blocked sockpuppet who created dozens of pageant contestant stubs, nearly all of which fail WP:BIO/WP:NMODEL (this article included). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie for a group nomination of several others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unlike most of the others, whose notability stems predominantly from US state pageant titles and national competition, Dwomoh holds a Miss Earth Belgium title. I nominated on the basis of not finding sources sufficient to pass WP:NMODEL or WP:BIO, but it occurs to me there may be a guideline about specific titles/competitions I haven't found. Perfectly willing to speedy keep pending identification of such precedent. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom - Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 04:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like the rest that need to be deleted. Fails WP:NMODEL Any precedent (as has been cited elsewhere) only exists because the same paid sock farm was so aggressive in creating all these silly articles. Apply policy - they fail. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Blefko[edit]

Leah Blefko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creation of a blocked sockpuppet who created dozens of pageant contestant stubs, nearly all of which fail WP:BIO/WP:NMODEL (this article included). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie for a group nomination of several others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom - Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 04:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like the rest that need to be deleted. Fails WP:NMODEL Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yugyeom[edit]

Kim Yugyeom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This singer is not notable outside of his group, Got7. The article does not even claim he has ever done any activities outside of Got7. The article has no reliable sources, and I could find no RS about this person separate from Got7. The upcoming drama listed in the filmography is one done through his agency with the other members of his group, not an independent film role. There is simply nothing to put in this article that isn't an exact copy of the Got7 article. Too soon! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. No RS, the film isn't out yet, as of yet no reason at all for a separate article. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-his article in ko.wikipedia is redirect to his group Got7,This singer is not notable outside of his group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchurang (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is not independently notable. Most of the article is about Got7. There are also no third-party reliable sources. --Random86 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone has a particularly compelling desire to merge this then I or WP:REFUND may delete it under a redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Fondozzi[edit]

Mickey Fondozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not covered in any RS that I can find - article is simply plot summary and can only ever be plot summary because of the lack of critical commentary in publications of note or any other media or academia source. Cameron Scott (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why we'd keep an article that is just plot summary and is never going to anymore than plot summarY? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2015 (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 deckertalk 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I suppose one could also redirect to The Punisher if one truly thought it was necessary. The article is just a plot summary. Fictional characters need to have real world notability, but none is asserted, nor does any seem likely. There is no reason to have an article on every single obscure comic book character. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further consideration, I have struck my !vote above. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a Name[edit]

Give it a Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources for this music festival. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having no reliable sources isn't a valid deletion arguement. This festival ran for five years across the UK and Europe. There's simply no way that there's no coverage of this. Read WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide those sources? The only source I could find is this somewhat trivial mention of it. The main content (the bands who played) is entirely unsourced which isn't great for BLPs there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
This AfD had been closed, but reopened as a result of review. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm kinda surprised too there aren't significant reliable sources for this. But we can't just assume they might be out there somewhere either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Fairly easily meets WP:N requirements with coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. [20] [21] [22] [23] NME also had reviews multiple years, including May 13, 2006: pp. 48–49. and May 12, 2007: p. 45. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:N upon a review of sources posted above by Paul Erik. NORTH AMERICA1000 07:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll withdraw this in light of Paul Erik's sources. That'll allow a non-admin closure. I'll be sure to check those sites next time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne P. Armstrong[edit]

Wayne P. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I almost certain that there is a copyright violation in here, article was heavily edited last year by an editor of the same name as this article, I can't find anything that would suggest notability though. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF JayJayWhat did I do? 01:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and deal with the situation that exists, differently. Note the main thing for Wikipedia is that there is a professor, now retired, with tons of great photos of plants and tons of knowledge, and past experience putting stuff online into his own freely-available online compendiums, and there is some interest and willingness to contribute to Wikipedia. can Wikipedia editors screw this up, yes they can, I am sure. How about try to cooperate and bring along this person and/or whoever has been posting some material about him or for him?
About whether the article subject meets wp:PROF, it seems he has more than 200 publications (I see within the biography article about him at his website), and I rather think he probably does meet wp:PROF. About behavior, looking at the article, it was a two sentence stub from January 2010 to January 2014 (at this version), and then an editor using Wayne Armstrong name developed it somewhat. Put their shoes on: a poor article lasts for a long time, they step in and develop a bit, finally. There are several inline references added, which seem somewhat relevant. Maybe this was done by a student worker or a student or a fan of the professor. The editor copy-pasted in what is apparently text from a San Diego newspaper article. It is not plagiarism, because it is clearly attributed, but it is probably copyvio, yes, so the article should merely be cited and some short quote given.
So, let's edit that down, and maybe give some instructions at the contributor Talk page. And Keep the article for now, and ask for some photos to be contributed, and try to develop this situation better, instead of worse, for Wikipedia. :) --doncram 01:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a national newspapers literature search, trying "Wayne Armstrong wolffia" and "Wayne Armstrong Palomar":
  • "Weird Plants", by Pamela D. Jacobsen, The Christian Science Monitor, 18 April 2000, page 18. 1546 word article about wolffia and other weird plants starting off with discussion by Armstrong as expert. Only one other expert cited, very close to end.
  • "CUTTINGS; The Castor Bean Plant: So Striking, So Poisonous", by Anne Raver, New York Times, 11 Sep 1994, page A.62. Sort of an odd article, giving tribute to armstrong; the author tried but failed to reach him. The "sumamry" of the article is this: (begin summary quote) Castor beans "are unquestionably among the most deadly seeds on earth, and it is their irresistible appearance that makes them so dangerous," Mr. Armstrong wrote in a 1982 article in Environment Southwest magazine, which I'd unearthed at the library of the New York Botanical Garden. / The castor bean file there disclosed other tidbits: Agatha Christie used the poison in her 1929 mystery, "The House of Lurking Death," in which an heir and an heiress die from ricin mixed into fig paste. And in 1979, there was a true case of a poisoning in London, in which a Bulgarian diplomat was pricked by the tip of an umbrella containing ricin and died. / "Walking among large castor shrubs on a hot summer day can be quite an experience," Mr. Armstrong wrote, "with exploding carpels and seeds flying through the air and bouncing off road signs, sidewalks and one's head." (end quote summary)
I don't think the Wikipedia writing is by him.
From some journal lit searching on him as author, I see works by him in an "environmental" database, in a biology database, and numerous works in art abstracts database (multiple articles in a magazine called Ornament, and other journals/magazines). For example: Armstrong, Wayne P., Sea Frontiers. May/Jun94, Vol. 40 Issue 3, p24. 8p. 6 Color Photographs, an article i've just skimmed. Don't have access to the photos, by him, included with the article.
--doncram 02:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to one of his articles, on Western Hackberry, on pages 12-15, at dezertmagazine (takes a while to load). Nice solid 4 page natural history magazine article. Maybe his >200 works are mostly like this. Seems like more a popular writer and a teacher. I would like to see any search in San Diego newspapers current & historical about him. --doncram 02:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There might be copyvio that I haven't checked. Journals referred by Doncram accurately establishes that Wayne P. Armstrong is notable. Noteswork (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've deleted the copyright violation. Examining the references, the SDUT article seems to be missing, and the NCT article is the only online source that covers the subject with any depth.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the point of AfD, article can be shaped later. Noteswork (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Noteswork: Discussion about the references and their sources is relevant to WP:Notability, which is often central to AfDs as it is here. It is also common practice in an AfD to inform other editors when the the article is substantially changed during the AfD. This is so that all participants are talking about the same version, and are aware of content to consider that may have been recently changed and can impact the AfD Consensus.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The SDUT article was a reprint of the NCT article. I merged those two cites and added a preemptive archive link to SDUT (which is the link we have). – Margin1522 (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 18:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per Becky Sayles, the NCT article is the only in-depth profile we have currently, and I didn't find any others (aside from the one on his site), so GNG might be difficult. But I am going to go with WP:PROF on the strength of the many popular articles, which is also one of the criteria for academics. They do seem to be mainly popular. Here is the WorldCat for Environment Southwest. It seems that it's not indexed by Science Citation Index. Ornament is a jewelry magazine. ZOONOOZ is the magazine of the San Diego Zoo. So, many popular articles on science, well known for those and his website. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 06:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RockON.me[edit]

RockON.me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG: no significant coverage by reliable independent sources. In fact, no coverage at all. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

María Díaz Cortés[edit]

María Díaz Cortés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable only claimed to 117 years old never verified no world record were broken either by this person could easily be redirected if anything Redsky89 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect. Sources currently in article suggest notability; it is an accomplishment to live to be 116 or 117 years old. An option is to redirect to this list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2015 (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) 22:14, 13 January 2015 (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) 01:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coasts (band)[edit]

Coasts (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced non notable band. Does not meet CSD:A7, as they assert notability, but "signing" does not meet WP:BAND Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets all 3 of the below WP:BAND requirements & has sources to back up all claims in the references section...

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinodigital (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

The BBC link has no content in it "This episode is not available". So cannot WP:Verify anything. If it were available it might help satisfy #12, but a single story generally does not grant notability. The daystune link is not usable for the purposes of WP:BAND #1 "This criterion includes published works in all forms except publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" The other two links do not contain any information whatsoever. I do not see any place where we can verify they have been placed into rotation by a major network or performed a notable song (by our criteria). Being popular on soundcloud doesn't really mean much to us currently (and isn't sourced in any case). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have swapped ref. 2 with a new source from Clash Magazine. A well known music journal.

I have now swapped reference 3 to include an iTunes link for the Made In Chelsea soundtrack. Proving that the band featured on the British television program of the same name, which is notable. Additionally, this fulfills criteria as a notable compilation album. Link available here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/made-in-chelsea-soundtrack/id765759007

Although the playback link is now expired on the BBC website, it very clearly states within the article Jessie Ware Session + Coasts, Zane Lowe - describing the content within the radio show. Further more, the article specifically mentions that Coasts feature as one of Zane Lowe's 'Hottest Records' : Jessie Ware is in session for Zane, plus a Hottest Record from Coasts.. Please take a second look. I have provided a supporting reference (ref. 5), which is a tweet from Zane discussing his selection of the band as 'next hype'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinodigital (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- The band 'Coasts' are definitely notable, and worthy of this article (talk). I have reviewed the page and it looks fine, not sure why it is up for deletion at all... Whether or not the article has been referenced appropriately is another thing, but I think it has. IPlease review. musiclab (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough independent coverage and recognition to establish notability, including a documented international tour. Update read more carefully, international tour only starts this year. Earflaps (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is this what Wikipedia is reduced to these days? Featured on BBC Radio 1 on 13 January 2015 EddieBernard (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of independent coverage, US tour, major label signing, Zane Lowe, references, what more do you need??? musiclab (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 05:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Besler[edit]

Nick Besler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_21&oldid=1142625973"