Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 April 16 April >

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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris Entertainment[edit]

Osiris Entertainment (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'd previously PRODed this, but the PROD has since been removed by an IP without any comment. My argument was that the company isn't notable. The sources on the article are all IMDb links, which cannot show notability, and a search brings up no sources that could establish notability for the company as a whole. Of the films linked in the article, most do not have an article and one was recently deleted for a lack of notability. One of the films (Listen to Your Heart (film)) does seem to have some notability (although it needs serious cleanup), but the other (Eavesdrop (film)) is decidedly non-notable and one that I'll be listing for deletion as well. Given that their productions have been predominantly non-notable and they have received no direct coverage themselves, I don't see where this passes notability guidelines per WP:CORP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I've opened up an AfD for Eavesdrop, but I also ended up having to redirect Listen to Your Heart to its director's page. Despite the amount of awards it claimed to have won, none are notable enough to really count towards notability and there was a very distinct lack of sources for that film. (I found about 2-3 sources, none of which were enough to argue for inclusion for its own entry.) This is something to take into consideration when arguing for or against notability for the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 23:50, 15 April 2013 (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. Valid arguments on either side and no consensus to delete; default to keep. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Dodge[edit]

Riley Dodge (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)

Former high school standout who fell into obscurity in college. Once notable, now no longer is. bender235 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 ankle injury is from "ESPNDallas.com" and is what you would expect for local coverage of a starting college athlete. Important local athletes in high schools also get such mentions. SalHamton (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, no ESPN and regional affiliates do not report ankle injuries on high school athletes unless they are extraordinarily noteworthy. Second, even if they did, that wouldn't negate this one. And third, try looking at USA Today "Coach Dodge and quarterback Dodge steer North Texas", Dallas Morning News "http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/sunbelt/2009-08-24-northtexas_N.htm", Boston.com "Dodge faces win-or-else season at North Texas", Sports Illustrated "The Son Also Shines", and a multitude of others. Just click on the "news" link above and you'll be taken to hundreds. Subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, and that is more than enough to establish notability even if the subject were to fail other specific guidelines per WP:ABELINCOLN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the link you provided the byline is "ESPNDallas.com," which is a regional affiliate. ESPNDallas.com has an entire section on local high school news, the ESPNDallas.com high school blog is here (note the coverage of mundane events) or go here for a specific high school. Many news agencies run articles about local football injuries even without a notable athlete. For example, this one from the same region of the country. I don't think you'll argue an average high school center sitting out a season meets GNG. Also you can find local ESPN stories like this story about a high school runner collapsing and being carried to the finish line.
I mentioned the Sports Illustrated article below (same article, different link). Your Boston.com article is about the father Todd Dodge. The son is only mentioned in minor parts, namely because the father made his freshman son the starting quarter as their losing streak continued. Then it points out the son was no longer the quarterback! The Dallas Morning News is also about the losing season, which is mostly about the father as well with the son mentioned in two places, including that the son didn't play a specific regular season game! Those trivial mentions fail to meet GNG for the son and likely belong in the father's article since he was fired for his losing streak. The 2009 USA Today article you mentioned twice is about "Riley Dodge's best-known highlight" being "his most embarrassing." It points out a lot of people on youtube watched the "embarrassing" event, which is him vomiting after throwing a pass. That mention is the best source as it deals with him and his college career, but as most briefly popular youtube clips it fails WP:EVENT. I don't think a quarterback vomiting is reason to keep this. SalHamton (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the ESPN High School Blog covers high school sports -- and high school football is notable. It doesn't carry injury reports of every player. It does report on noteworthy events of notable high school athletes. The USA Today article names him in the title of the article. The Boston.com article actually considers him enough of a source to quote him. And the USA Today article points to his notability. You mention that it talks about the youtube clip of him vomiting. You fail to mention the next line of the story: "Then he called for the snap and threw a perfect ball to a streaking receiver for the go-ahead score." And you fail to mention the other hundreds of articles about the subject that show up in Google Search. The argumens sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that is not a reason to delete an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say it carries "injury reports of every player"? My point was the injury was a local mention and (quoting myself from above) "is what you would expect for local coverage of a starting college athlete." I then went on to say "Important local athletes in high schools" get those too. Such local articles don't mean every injured local athlete who gets a write-up should have a Wikipedia article. If there really were "hundreds of articles" about this person then you can do much better than local articles, articles about his father that mention the son didn't play a game, or articles about throwing a pass and vomiting (WP:EVENT). Aside from local sports coverage, his father's fame and the pass/vomit, what is he notable for in the sport? Does he hold ANY record, played in a championship game or have any college honors? It seems you are asserting he is notable for having played quarterback for his father's college team (fails WP:ATHLETE) and for the USA Today article about pass/vomit (fails WP:EVENT). It isn't a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but a lack of notability-- the reason the nominator created the AFD. SalHamton (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability comes from the continuous coverage in the media, not because of any skill or ability as a player. The subject doesn't have to hold any record or play in any championship game if he surpasses WP:GNG which he clearly does, and anyone who would click on the news link above would clearly see that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE#College_athletes mentions non-trivial media about awards or records. This subject has none of that. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and defines "significant coverage" as sources that "address the subject directly in detail." As explained above and below, this subjects fails that requirement too. SalHamton (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google News search turns up over a hundred articles. A broader Google search returns over 14,700. I'll grant that a lot of them are not on the subject and are simple search engine errors, but there are more than enough to establish notability. Yes, they address the subject in detail. Yes, they address the subject in depth. No, they are not routine.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, google hits aren't an argument to keep, see: WP:GHITS. Secondly besides the search errors, there are other people with this name including an author ("Riley-Dodge Vows Read in Westwood," Los Angeles Times, 1945) and admiral Frank Riley Dodge ("After 100 Years, Admiral Doesn't Get Worked Up Easily," Chicago Sun-Times, 1995) in those results. Thirdly, the quality of the results is telling. The second google hit is his twitter account where he describes himself as a "Graduate Assistant" in College Station. In google news most of the relevant results to this Riley are trivial mentions in local reports of specific games, including the type of blogging you cite above with the ankle injury. SalHamton (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)‎[reply]
You really should read stuff before you post discussions about it. The "Riley-Dodge Vows Read in Westwood," Los Angeles Times, 1945 article (which is indeed a mis-matched search hit) you say is about an author. Wrong--it's about a wedding. It's obvious you aren't actually doing the research you claim to be doing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE#College_athletes. The article is about the college football career of player that earned no awards, records or hall of fame honors. The first reference (RiseMag) doesn't exist and redirects to another website. The 2007 Sports Illustrated article is rather detailed in its high school section about his future college prospects. The Dallas Morning News (the link is dead) is equally about his famous father (Todd Dodge). The last reference is from 2011 and is about "play[ing] his last down at North Texas" after his father was fired. Any relevant material about the son playing for his father belongs in the father's article and this can be deleted. SalHamton (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nominator admits the person was "once notable". Well, if someone was notable, they still are. Notability is not temporary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relister's comment: Despite the length of the discussion above, it was only between two people. Relisted to encourage additional participation. —Darkwind (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sports Illustrated, USA Today[1], The Dallas Morning News[2] and the Bleacher Report[3] are more than sufficient to establish notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bleacher Report is not a reliable source, the Dallas and USA Today sources is trivial, routine coverage that all athletes get, we only have the SI source but I explain that below. Secret account 03:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the USA Today reference, his name in the title. That's not "trivial" -- that's a featured article. The Dallas Morning News article is a feature article on the subject. And apparently Bleacher Report (see article) has significantly cleaned up their act and recieved praise from Forbes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • USA Today was about him playing for his father and more focused on his father if anything, the Dallas source is "Football: Riley Dodge decides to transfer", extremely routine coverage. After that coverage simply disappeared. Secret account 18:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The si.com article is substantial coverage about both the son and the father. The reason they may be particularly interested in him is because of his father, but that's a real world interest, and it should not matter to us why the RW is interested, only that they are interested. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when we are dealing with these kind of articles, high-school standouts that never achieved any major playing time, we treat it like a WP:BLP1E. Arguably the SI source is substantial coverage, but it is mostly because of the "father" and discusses the son high-school career. If he didn't had a very notable father, he would have never gotten that coverage. The other sources linked above are all trivial, routine mentions all college athletes get, especially the Dallas source (a school transfer to a Division III school) Clear cut WP:BLP1E, never was notable under our guidelines. If he played extensively for a major college program or had major coverage covering his college career, I'll see a reason for keeping, but there is none. Secret account 03:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question what policy or guideline states that "when we are dealing with these kind of articles, high-school standouts that never achieved any major playing time, we treat it like a WP:BLP1E" ? I found nothing in WP:BLP1E that would lead to that interpretation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BLP1E is be the high school career here, and no other claims of notability outside that, no decent college career, no professional career, nothing else. If anything a merge to his father page is a good solution, as most of the coverage is mostly focused on him playing for his father. Again if it wasn't for his father, he would have never had an article. Paul can we agree on a merge here instead? Secret account 18:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think so. You call a feature articles "routine coverage" and take a four-year span of time and lump it into "one event" -- I think you're being excessive in the interpretation of the guidelines and are really coloring outside the lines. There is nothing that I can find that would deem to take his "high school career" as you put it and lump it into "one event" -- nor is there any reason to consider the feature articles pointed out here to be "routine coverage", nor have the other articles and web references mentioned above about his college career been addressed, and nor has the case of notability being lost (which you cannot do in Wikipedia). Subject clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Secret summed up my feeling well. We need a very high bar for high school athletes, his closest claim of notability was his high school career. He would not have received the coverage if his father wasn't famous. J04n(talk page) 16:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question you do realize that he is not a high school athlete anymore, don't you?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes, I commented that his biggest claim to notability was his high school career. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

eM Client[edit]

AfDs for this article:
EM Client (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 software. No significant coverage. Most edits are by single issue editors who most likely are involved in the produce or sale of the software. Article has been nominated and deleted twice in the past. 1 2 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The first PC World review is a good source. The other ones are entries in a list of several which provides minor coverage. In aggregate, these aren't sufficient to pass notability although a couple of more good sources would push it over for me. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found a few more sources directly about the program & added at the bottom of the list.Grepfruit (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - lehsys.com is somebody's blog so not a reliable source. The others don't offer any significant coverage so I didn't really check inot the sources reliableness. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. Added more sources in Czech & something in German - these are relevant secondary sources and they deal with the program in detail. Grepfruit (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Just a hint for any future AFD. Rather than taking new sources at then of a previous comment, posting them in a new comment makes it easier for other editors (liKe me) to identify and review the new soucrcing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relister's comment Relisted to encourage further discussion about the sources listed above. —Darkwind (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the additional reviews of the the software in Czech technology press are sufficient to establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- while I agree that the usefullnes of various pieces ofsoftware featured in magazines like pcworld, pcmag etc. is of varying level, the mere fact that their editors have decided to list this application in some of their "best sw for XYZ" pages passes the notability threshold for me. So in spite of my client being clearly superior :), I recommend keeping it. Jkt (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep full reviews in PC World and similar publications prove notability. Of course, they should have been added to the article in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seemingly case that a thorough WP:BEFORE shows notability, while to credit the nominator, the article by itself did not. The article needs a major overhaul with the proper reliable sources added, but notability is notability the rest at this point are surmountable problems. Mkdwtalk 07:04, 22 April 2013 (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. Former spam or current COI are no reasons for deletion, but unreliable coverage is. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skinshift[edit]

Skinshift (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)

Does not appear sufficiently notable, possible spam File Éireann 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++Made changes after reading the comments above to remove any unsourced medical claims. Please review changes before deleting! Trying to play by WP rules, and respect the guidance offered here by WP editors. Have dramatically re-edited article to make it completely sourced by third-parties. Sources now include three of the top TV shows in the USA and a top 30 circulation newspaper; hopefully, this adequately addresses the noteworthiness of the entry; if not, please tell me the threshold and I will find additional sourced material. Thanks!-- 9User: JohnsaavnUser talk:Johnsaavntalk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Have re-edited the page to avoid any unsourced medical claims, and to remove any self-published material previously sourced. Making my best efforts here to comply with and accede to WP standards and practices. If an editor can tell me what else I need to do, will absolutely do it asap. Thanks! --johnsaavn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Also: please note that competitors like Proactiv and others have Wikipedia pages that read and are sourced quite similarly to our page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactiv_Solution. Trying to understand and FIX what I am doing wrong here. Seeking help; will make changes needed if someone will advise me as to what is needed. Thanks! --johnsaavnUser:Johnsaavn —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Product/company is not notable enough for a wikipedia article. Also, the creator and only editor of the article is writing about his own business. He confirms that on the articles talk page. The article is spam. Jahoe (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jahoe, you clearly are not unbiased in this matter -- since you initiated the proceedings to get this article deleted. I showed you the courtesy of making every requested change, gutting it, and still you push for deletion. What else do I have to do - just tell me, and I will do it!

Additionally, as politely as I can say this: 1) I do not work for Skinshift; you are, again, in error - I run my own company in NJ and have no affiliation with this brand. 2) You repeatedly commented that product pages do not exist on Wikipedia, yet I have shown you multiple places where they do - for example, for Proactiv, a competitor of Skinshift - which rather makes my point completely; 3) Dr. Harper and SKINSHIFT have been featured on Good Morning America, The Doctors, the Dr. Oz program and the Today Show. In other words: every U.S. tv network believes this is a notable product, yet you do not. Isn't your point of view completely extreme here? 4) Again: Please tell me what changes are necessary for this to not be "spam." Clearly, the product is important. Clearly, it is now sourced and referenced in accordance with Wikipedia policy -- I made the very changes you asked me to make.

It strikes me as odd you refuse to relent here; the article, as it stands now, is neutral, sourced, and relevant (as again, every major U.S. TV network has put the product and Dr. Harper on the air).

Tell me what other citations you would possible require, and I will attempt to find them.

Like you, I am totally committed to playing by the rules on Wikipedia. I'm trying to fix this; you refuse to help. User: Johnsaavn({{User talk:Johnsaavntalk]])

We've been trough this already on the articles talk page. By using the term "our competitors" there, you confirmed you are somehow involved in the skinshift product, which makes the article spam. Again: I do not have an opinion on you or your product, but I believe that wikipedia should be kept free of spam. If that conflicts with your interests, than so be it.
I do not seek further discussion with you, but since this page was set up after our earlier discussion on the articles talk page, I felt I had to give my opinion here too. Jahoe (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jahoe, you are being spectacularly inaccurate and unfair.

So again, you have no counter-arguments to the points that I do NOT work for this company (i don't!), and that this is a well-known product line that has appeared on every major TV network in the USA (cited) and major papers in the USA (cited).

I do not seek further discussion with you either - unless you actually are willing to address the substantive, legitimate points I have made, and are willing to refrain from inaccurate, subjective speculation you continue to trumpet here. You have made my point, again!

You claim is that this is spam because I am somehow biased, and the product isn't noteworthy.

My claim is the bias you cite is non-existent (I do not work for he company), and that major newspapers and TV networks in the USA -- which I have cited -- say this is a legitimate product, and Wikipedia has pages for product competitors of SKINSHIFT, like Proactiv.

No disrespect, but I have made repeated objective points here; you have expressed only subjective opinion in response.

And I even did you the courtesy of making edits you initially requested - and still you are not satisfied! You simply are being petulant and obstinate.

Again, I ask: what changes would satisfy you here? How might I fix this article so that it would address your concerns?

If you are unable or unwilling to answer this, perhaps you should stand down, sir.

Just because you call something spam, and refuse to change your mind in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary should not make it so. That is not is accordance with WP values, at all. Johnsaavn{talk} —Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made edits I requested??? I did not request any edits sir.
You removed portions of text from the article on your own initiative, after I flagged it as spam. Someone else started the current deletion request. See articles history.
I explained my motives to you on the talk page. Read that again if you wish, but please stop repeating yourself. Jahoe (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original proposer of the article for deletion. I still think it should be propably deleted - not very notable and written by someone linked to the company. However there is a great lack of other editors in this discussion for some reason, so I have listed it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for further comment.--File Éireann 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I closed the DRN listing as a regular DRN volunteer because DRN does not handle disputes pending elsewhere (i.e. here), but I have weighed in, below, with my opinion and !vote as a neutral editor. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not a company employee.

Again, if all three major TV networks in the USA covered the product... How is it not notable? Curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (reluctantly). The article may have originally been spammy, but has been purged of that and its appearance on the TV shows and in the newspaper article are enough, if barely, to indicate that it is verifable and thus notable. I might not have felt that way if the only RS was the newspaper article, which looks suspiciously like a regurgitated press release, but the TV coverage is enough. I would note that the three current links to those TV appearances are to Vimeo, not to the original broadcasts, and are almost certainly improper as prohibited links to material which is a copyright violation (see WP:ELNEVER), but they do show that the appearances did occur and that's enough to satisfy WP:V's requirement of verifiability. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (reluctantly). Having heard the arguments, I am willing to allow it's retention.--File Éireann 16:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). I've expanded the article a bit, adding cites of sources independent of the company and adding reportage of other viewpoints. As a sidebar, I'll mention that I came to this discussion after seeing this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article still fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:CORPDEPTH; the televised links are promotional, and other coverage is self-published or advertorial. Miniapolis 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Examining the television program segments listed in the article as sources, they amount to pure advertisements: Material so very closely based on press releases is not an acceptable source, and if it appeared on a major network show, shame on them, but we have standards. encyclopedias in general do have higher stands than television shows on medicine, and such shows are therefore not acceptable sources. I don't know if WP:MEDRES applies exactly here, but the general principle is valid. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING (not to mention that there seems to be a possible WP:COI problem with the main contributor going by the talk page). ALH (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2013 (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. The keeps have it, for good arguments see Carrite's comment. Not a DICDEF; content and sources, it seems agreed upon, carry this over that threshold. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy (general)[edit]

Taxonomy (general) (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)

Violation of WP:NOT#DICT, which says that "articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title", which is all this page does. The word "taxonomy" is just a common word. There is nothing to bridge biological and military taxonomy except the act of classifying, which they both have in common with almost every other human activity. I note that the current article is missing a taxonomy of ontological arguments. —Srnec (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with that. It would be an improvement on the status quo. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (at this stage) This proposed deletion is part of a larger restructure that is presently under discussion here. That discussion should be completed first. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I would have done it in stages if I thought one move depended on the other. I believe this page ought to be deleted regardless of what happens to the other page, and I believe that page ought to be moved regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The rationale is muddled. The existing entry is not a dictionary definition. Pointing out that the article is missing something that it should have is hardly a rationale for deletion. aprock (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say the existing entry was not a dictionary definition. I said that it violated the policy described at WP:NOT#DICT, because it "contain[s] more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title." I was not "[p]ointing out that the article is missing something", I was pointing out that the article is a random collection of ways in which the word taxonomy has been used. Such instances could be multiplied ad nauseum. There's a disambiguation page for that. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this stage. Agree with above opposition to the deletion: the article is missing something and has a plethora of other matter, but just deleting it would be premature. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; with all due respect, the original rationale for deletion amounts to a fussy, pedantic (mis-)use of WP:NOT. this article is USEFUL; that matters. it's a kind of article-length disambiguation page, & that's NOT A BAD THING. as for the arguement about taxonomy = classification so merge & be done, i'd suggest that i) it is still useful to have the various "taxonomies" disambiguated, & ii) the useage of "taxonomy" has specificities within the larger topic of "classification"; in that the 2 words are not always & exactly interchangeable in english use. how we should handle that, i do not know. in deciding to operate wiktionary as a completely separate wikiproject, we left certain questions of how to handle "the science of words" in a messy limbo. Lx 121 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yeeesh, I haven't smelled this many socks since I was in Junior High gym class... What the hell is "Oppose" supposed to mean? Carrite (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the "Oppose" voters seem to be spillover from the RfC linked to above, where "Oppose" would be a reasonable vote. I think feelings are running high and they just didn't remember that one doesn't vote "Oppose" at AfD. It's clear from their contributions that they're not socks.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What RFC? Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. I meant your requested move at Talk:Taxonomy_(biology)#Requested_move.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While we need to guard against trying to make WP into a dictionary, which it is not, this provides a breadth of in-links and encyclopedic information. Worth keeping around, for sure, "the force" would be lessened by its deletion... Carrite (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information belongs elsewhere. The article as it stands misleadingly implies that there is a general sense of "taxonomy" apart from its dictionary definition. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – (1) Some of the information might belong elsewhere, but deleting this would be a major mistake. This material is extremely difficult philosophy that requires tiny iterative improvements. (2) Although the sock-accusation above is too abominable to deserve a response, this much I will say, that "Oppose" means that I oppose the set of proposals put forward by Srnec of which this is just one; another is that Taxonomy (biology) should be renamed. These broad-stroke suggestions would seriously damage the information that has so far been built, careful consensus-building is required here. Abusive behaviours such as sock-puppet allegations against those who built the previous consensus are deplorable. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This material is extremely difficult philosophy that requires tiny iterative improvements"? What does that mean? How is this philosophy? And what makes it difficult? It seems really basic to me: "taxonomy" is a synonym for "system of classification" and has been widely used that way. Srnec (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I answer this objection below. Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if this is a dicdef, then half the articles in Wikipedia are dicdefs. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • I didn't say it's a dicdef, I said violates a part of the guideline called DICDEF. I quoted that part. Try again. Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No valid reason has been given for deletion. So what if the article violates NOT#DICTDEF in some tangential way? It's not a reason for deletion. At best it's a case for renaming to "List of general types of taxonomy" or something, but how would that clarify or improve anything about this encyclopedia? The nomination is clearly motivated by some internal subtlety of the above-linked-to-RfC which I can't be bothered to disentangle. It's ludricrous on its face.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would improve the encyclopedia by removing a piece of misleading OR and SYNTH. There are no "general types of taxonomy", there's just the word and its uses, most importantly its primary one (biological). When Graham Oppy used it to refer to his naming of types of ontological arguments in the external link I provided in the nomination, was he employting a general type or scheme of taxonomy? No, he was just classifying arguments by form and premises and calling it a "taxonomy", probably to indicate that he was attempting to be both rigorous and exhaustive, like biological taxonomy. Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had no idea this would be so hard to explain. The article currently reads: "Almost anything—animate objects, inanimate objects, places, concepts, events, properties, and relationships—may then be classified according to some taxonomic scheme." Why almost anything? Can't anything be classified? And the word "some" is a weasel: there is no such thing as "a taxonomic scheme", because there are as many taxonomic schemes as people come up with. There is nothing distinctly "taxonomic" about one scheme for classifying over against another. "Taxonomy" is just a fancy word for classification and nomenclature, often used to indicate an attempt at rigor. There is no such thing as "general taxonomy" and the word has no technical sense outside of its appropriation by distinct disciplines for entirely distinct classification schemes. This is different from bibliography, which is a both a discipline unto itself, the same across multiple disciplines, and concept, which is a technical term in philosophy (that is the sense the article is about). Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find sources for your position, you could cite them in the article. FWIW I completely disagree with every one of your statements in the paragraph. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof does not lie on me. According to Oxford Reference, taxonomy is "The formal classification of organisms, soils, or any other entities, based on degrees of relatedness among the items being considered." This is the closest I can find to something like a general non-biological sense of taxonomy, but it is not at all like the sense used in the article. But then,"degree of relatedness" could describe anything. The current article is a grab-bag of instances of usage of the word, but there is no source in the article that talks about "taxonomy" as a general term of art or distinguishes "general taxonomy" from the dictionary definition. Where are your sources? Srnec (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof does lie on you, because you proposed the deletion. The Oxford Reference you have found completely ignores phylogenetic taxonomy; I'd call that a not-very-good definition. So you are saying that because we haven't yet summarized Wittgenstein's work in this article (a famously difficult thing to do accurately) that it should be deleted. Deletionism is not helpful to wikipedia's future. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly you are not suggesting that family resemblance has nothing to do with relatedness? Not that I was defending the Oxford definition, quite the opposite. Srnec (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if "general taxonomy" is not an independent discipline but one that is only appropriated for distinct classification schemes, I still see value in having a parent article. TheBlueCanoe 00:05, 23 April 2013 (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 Somalia Affair. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Matchee[edit]

Clayton Matchee (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 relevant biographical details of Clayton Matchee are covered in the Somalia Affair article, in which Matchee was an alleged participant. He was not notable for any other reason, so I do not believe there are other biographical facts that could or should be used to extend this article further. As such it seems to be a case of WP:1EVENT. TheGrappler (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2013 (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. Poor article (everyone agrees on that), notable topic. Next up, article improvement. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist state[edit]

Capitalist state (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)

Editor refuses to allow very bad article to be improved Scott Illini (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that defining a "capitalist state" is important, esp. with the changes to this form by the Chinese gov't. The article should be improved with sourced material, not personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – While the article needs improvement, including a definition, it has enough WP:POTENTIAL to be worthwhile. Discussions regarding improvements to the article should go on the article talk page. The rationale given by the nominator is a weak one for supporting deletion. (Alternatives also include merger into other articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I agree with S. Rich. The article is worthwhile but needs substantial work. Google Books and Google Scholar a vast number of links to the term. scope_creep (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A shitty original essay followed by a shittier list. The problem being that this is definitely an encyclopedic topic. If anybody is edit warring to defend the current incomprehensibly bad sack of fertilizer, they need to stop immediately, because this mess needs to be chainsawed and started over. That is all. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:TNT. There's probably a legitimate article to be had at Capitalist state, but it doesn't resemble this in the slightest. But maybe we sheeple in the autocratic United States are just too blind to see The Truth on this one. No doubt the subjects of infamous autocratic states such as Canada and Germany would feel the same way. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Tiura Evans[edit]

Dawn Tiura Evans (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)

Executive of questionable notability; article added by an apparent WP:COI account. Of the provided references for industry awards, I'm not finding the subject listed when doing a text search. A Google News search on "Dawn Tiura Evans" shows only one result. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, so apologize if I'm not responding correctly. I removed the part that sounded CV-ish and added external verifiable links. User:Sholliman —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kung Fu Book of Caine: The Complete Guide to TV's First Mystical Eastern Western[edit]

The Kung Fu Book of Caine: The Complete Guide to TV's First Mystical Eastern Western (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)

Nothing in the article that this book is notable. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was debating suggesting a redirect to Kung_Fu_(TV_series)#Further_reading, but I'm not sure it's really all that helpful or appropriate to redirect to a "further reading" section. I can see where it has been used as a reference ([4]) and in one case directly quoted, but it just isn't enough to really show that this book would pass notability guidelines. If anyone wants to userfy the content or work on a page for the author (assuming he passes WP:AUTHOR) then that's an option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here suggests notability under WP:NBOOK. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renu s Nagar Poswal[edit]

Renu s Nagar Poswal (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)

Yes, this should be a BLPPROD, and yes, it was. That was removed because sources appeared. Now there are no sources again. So I suppose it is a BLP where the references are subject to dispute. Time for AfD to settle this once and for all. Delete as failing WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2013 (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. Not sure what "self-promotional" is, but the deletes have the numbers and the arguments (chart per hullabaloo). Drmies (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything or Nothing[edit]

Everything or Nothing (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)

nn, fails WP:ALBUM and the GNG. Artist article recently deleted, but not quite eligible (maybe) for A9 deletion. No independting sourcing beyon cursory allmusic listing, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. CaptainScreebo Parley! 09:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep #20 on iTunes Pop Albums chart should be good enough per Wikipedia:NALBUMS#Recordings; however, I was not able to verify this. Does anyone know a way to access historical iTunes charts, from 2008-2009? Willing to extend benefit of doubt. If chart ranking proves bogus, delete. Listmeister (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference: GossipOnThis (Wordpress platform, but not open-source personal blog)
FYI: album was released only on iTunes. RCraig09 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:49, 15 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nehru Park Akola[edit]

Nehru Park Akola (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)

Short article about a city park that doesn't demonstrate any importance or notability BigPimpinBrah (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I believe that this may be WP:WPSPAM ... either that or a hoax. See "There are 2 rabbits, many pidgeons and a parrot. There is a Mini Train ride. There is a canteen." Inthepubliceye (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (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 Deleted INeverCry 21:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Kelly (film)[edit]

King Kelly (film) (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)

Written like an advertisement and also notability. teratogen (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: note this is a recreation of King Kelly (film) which was deleted 15:22, April 15, 2013 by INeverCry (talk · contribs) under provision G11 of CSD. Technical 13 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:DENY. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Wade (Survivor contestant)[edit]

Benjamin Wade (Survivor contestant) (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 about a reality TV show contestant lack notability outside of the show. —Waveword2 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013‎— Waveword2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by DGG as a copyvio (G12). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St Sebastians Church Coonoor[edit]

St Sebastians Church Coonoor (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:NOTABILITY. No distinguishing architecture, no famous religious personnel involved. No third-party coverage. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 18:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyright infringement from the church's web site here and here. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gumshoes: A New Town, Oh Joy![edit]

The Gumshoes: A New Town, Oh Joy! (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 tag. No indication that the book meets the criteria laid out in WP:NBOOK. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability, either in article or on Amazon page, which shows it as a selfpublished book with negligible sales. -Nat Gertler (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I remember searching for this when it was a PROD and finding nothing and this is still the case now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 16 April 2013 (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. Consensus is that this is a non-notable neologism. Will userfy on request. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apex fallacy[edit]

Apex fallacy (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)

Sources don't fit criteria for a Wikipedia stub or article, also isn't an actual logical fallacy recognized in any sort of academia. Propose either the finding of better sources or deletion. Countered (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it wasn't a technical logical fallacy (it seemed like one to me, but I admit I don't know the intricacies here) that would only qualify for removing the category, not the entire article. There could be a more appropriate label for the idea, do you have a suggestion? The source in question is that multiple psychologists in the field have discussed an application of this concept, and it has been discussed in a major newspaper. Ranze (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think I forgot to ask it be userfied if this occurs, but that's a great idea. I believe this article will inevitably be made, and if it is not now, then I hope I can continue to better it on userspace until it is accepted. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not address the rebuttals to the nomination which occurred prior to your nomination, however. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This term is is in common use in quality pages on the web, political discussion and academic discourse. It is a variant of the Fallacy of Composition. Wikipedia records such variants. CSDarrow (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind showing me these "quality pages on the web", or a source that claims it is a variant of the fallacy if composition? 97.90.153.202 (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)— 97.90.153.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am not your research assistant. CSDarrow (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've claimed that research exists, yet you're unwilling to provide it for the article? Why are you even on wikipedia? Your word that it exists isn't enough of a reason to keep this article from being deleted, and quite frankly it seems like you don't have a valid reason at all, without evidence of this "research". 97.90.153.202 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)— 97.90.153.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In addition to composition fallacy, which I will read up on thanks you you, I believe on further reading it may also involve selection bias. I am wondering if there are logical fallacies related to the use of selection bias which may also be relevant here. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selection Bias Would give that if most observed men are powerful people, then all men are powerful people. Fallacy of Composition gives if most powerful people are men, then men as a group are powerful; ie the group has inherited a property of its composition. There is a difference and the Apex Fallacy is a form of the latter. CSDarrow (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bunch of other relevant fallacies to the See Also section but Countered removed them even though it's clear they're related somehow even though you make a good argument for composition-fallacy being the most strongly related. That the article no longer even references composition fallacy shows it's now being censored. It's difficult to improve an article if someone attacking it is just going to default rollback everything built. Ranze (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm appalled that you would accuse me of censorship. I've "rolled back" the edits because none of the information presented has any sources cited when talking about logical fallacies. What was put into the article counts as original research, which violates Wikipedia:No_original_research. I've added tags to reflect the fact that the only source this stub seems to have is a blog that calls itself a news paper, yet I see no proof that it really is a newspaper. All I've asked for is sources providing evidence that this "fallacy" exists in any meaningful form, in acadimia, or in written articles that can be used as secondary sources. So far no one has provided any of these citations, and until they do I maintain that this page needs to be deleted, as it isn't notable, nor supported by sources. Countered (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not require sources to be academic, read Reliable Sources. CSDarrow (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I never said they had to be. So where are your sources for it being a logical fallacy? Where are your sources that aren't from shady web blogs? That's all I'm asking for here. Countered (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually know what a an Informal Fallacy is? This is self evidently one. In particular, self evidently a form of the Fallacy of Composition; ie a property of the whole is inferred form a property of a constituent part(s). The constituent part in this case being the apex. CSDarrow (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, "patriarchy" doesn't assume that all men are at the apex of society, but that most of those at the apex are men. So it seems like this is just a neologism that is a contradiction of a strawman argument. Not to mention that you still need to provide sources for that meaning, ones that aren't from personally run blogs, that have reputability. Until then, I don't think this page should exist. Countered (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our own personal views on whether any example is correct or not is of no interest to Wikipedia, We rely on sourced material. The page now has some quality sources and should at least act as a stub for more contributions. The page should clearly stay. CSDarrow (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situational bias of sources is irrelevant if the article is not about that. The articles is simply about the concept of an Apex fallacy, it is not about selective applications of it. Circumstantial applications can be removed, if necessary, without dooming the article. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not require that sources be unbiased. CSDarrow (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appeal for all the people arguing delete, while I still think it deserves its own article, if that is not the case, I would like to appeal that rather than deletion, this perhaps be redirected/merged with fallacy of composition which, upon reading on CSDarrow's suggestion, appears to be very similar to this. Discussion of "apex fallacy" label could continue on the fallacy of composition talkpage, and perhaps be mentioned in a section there, rather than utterly removing the content. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is men's rights activist astroturfing. The guy above isn't posting examples of its usage because they're all on websites showcasing brutal misogyny and hateful ignorance, like A Voice for Men. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your post showcasing? The Harvard Business Review by any measure is a reputable publication. CSDarrow (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting it be kept in the context of being a pseudoscientific MRA evo-psych fantasy as part of their misogynistic platform? In that case, I'm all for keeping it, since we'd be calling it what it is. Similar articles illustrate how phrenology and other ignorant ideas were used to fuel racial hatred, so I'd have no problem doing the same criticism for MRAs' bullshit ideas and hatred of women. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another unsourced neologism. If it ever catches on to the point of notability, then fine. But until then - nope, sorry - Alison ❤ 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept has been used and discussed by a Senior Editor of the Harvard Business Review, (reprinted on Bloomberg.com), and discussed at length by a well known Academic in an interview. This concept is not unsourced and the term Apex Fallacy is commonly used on the web[6]. CSDarrow (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the extent the term exists, it can be discussed as an argument used by anti-feminists in articles on the subject, since that appears to be the only place it's used. SnowFire (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided- this seems to be an applied version of selection bias, cherry picking, and Fallacy of Composition and perhaps could be merged tho one of those. The article itself is a microstub with little content, but is about as well-sourced as a two-sentence microstub can be. And denounce Zeality's view as hateful bile unfounded in policy; seriously, that crap doesn't help. Reyk YO! 00:52, 23 April 2013 (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) 02:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angle Township, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota[edit]

Angle Township, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota (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)

Content fork of Northwest Angle. The Northwest Angle and Angle Township are the same thing, the scope of the two articles are almost identical.

Note to closing admin: This can't technically be deleted as the Northwest Angle article has content imported from the Township article, so interpret any delete votes as redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The township is notable as a populated area. The only reason that this appears to be a content fork of Northwest Angle is because you imported the information giving the topics the same scope. Ryan Vesey 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles had the same scope before I imported that content. I imported that content because the content was well within the scope of the Northwest Angle article. The township, the Angle, whatever you call it, is notable as a populated area. That doesn't mean it needs two articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The township should certainly have its own article. I'd be more supportive of incorporating the Northwest Angle article into the township article than the other way around (but haven't done the research to know if I would actually support that, my gut tells me the Northwest Angle article is also notable). The fact that two articles cover the same geographical area does not mean that they have the same scope. Ryan Vesey 14:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference in the scope of the articles? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the distinction here is that Angle Township is a political entity, while "the Northwest Angle" is a geographical region. They are certainly heavily related to each other, but that doesn't necessarily make one of them a content fork. See also the discussion on the talk page, while old I believe the points made against merging are still pertinent. (Also, why are we at AfD when even the nominator seems to be arguing for at most a merge and redirect? This seems perilously close to speedy keep criterion 1...) BryanG (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MonsterJunkies (novel)[edit]

The MonsterJunkies (novel) (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. Although there is a Wikipedia article on the author of this book, the book itself doesn't seem to have generated any scholarly response, and hasn been talked about in reliable third-party sources.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sign of notability. That there is an article on the author isn't even any help, as that article is itself created by the same editor as this one, and is built on puffery and problematic sources, and is a reasonable candidate for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If notability can be established for the author then I would support a redirect, otherwise delete. There is some assertion of notability for him, assuming the claims of him winning a Telly Award (among others) for a show he created (Reptile Chronicles) is correct. If that can be verified, then that could establish notability, but until I actually see that he received the award I'll be skeptical. I admit that if that's all he's known for, it would probably be more appropriate to create an article for the show and redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hanowski[edit]

Ben Hanowski (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 to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets it or otherwise achieves notability. Prod was disputed based on the fact he signed a pro contract however NHOCKEY requires him to play 100 games at the highest minor league level or a game in the NHL to meet NHOCKEY. He isn't at that point yet. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC) DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hanowski is listed on the Flames' active roster, and is scheduled to make his NHL debut tonight. Barring an unexpected change, this AFD is likely to be mooted in about six hours. Resolute 18:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, not just expected. The Flames have announced he will make his NHL debut tonight. Resolute 18:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wierd I hadn't see any of that on my newsreader today. If he does play I will withdraw my nom. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he just took his first shift, and is now a bonafide NHL player. Resolute 01:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Players that were active on a pro sports roster are okay. 64.134.102.69 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No just being signed to a contract doesn't meet the cut. You have to actually play in a game. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Clearly and easily meets GNG criteria, and is making his NHL debut tonight[7] to also comply with NHOCKEY criteria. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's making his NHL debut tonight. Canuck89 (have words with me) 21:33, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2013 (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. Consensus is that the sources do not prove this is a notable outfit. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CasinoWebScripts[edit]

CasinoWebScripts (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 see nothing here in the way of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" demanded by WP:GNG. We have a press release, an advertisement, the company's own website, passing mention in a blog post, a directory entry/blog post, a blog post and a press release.

Finally, we have this blog post. Now, the author of the article, in an edit summary, notes that material from the same site is used in other articles, and that is correct. But the WP:WAX argument is invalid. The fact that gamingzion.com is cited elsewhere does not imply it is a reliable source. Indeed, by its own admission, it's a self-published venue with no kind of editorial oversight, as the term is conventionally understood.

Given the lack of usable sources, deletion seems the only valid option. - Biruitorul Talk 16:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 minutes ago I saw a page on WikiPedia with only 2 notable sources. It had different category, but still. This page has 8 notable sources. Looks like Biruitorul has something against this page staying online on WikiPedia. I believe the page should stay as there are no reasons to remove it - Frederic77 Talk 07:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...I saw a page on WikiPedia with only 2 notable sources." That again neglects WP:WAX. smtchahal(talk) 07:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, this software article lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2013 (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) 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hairline Illusions[edit]

Hairline Illusions (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. All sources provided were either self-published or trivial. Jojalozzo 15:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, very likely not notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC). Followup: As of 17:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I checked through all versions including the the "pre-gut" version below and found no versions worthy of keeping and little hope that this organization meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An apparent WP:PROMO piece, sourced almost exclusively to WP:SPS sources or promotional materials (which generally don't have the information they are being cited for). Only Gnews hits are this and this article on microcredit that uses the company as an example. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit, there was a bit more content and several sources before I gutted it due to very poor source quality. Jojalozzo 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-gutted version as well as all other versions that follow should be considered for salvage-ability and rescue prior to deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm not sure on the procedure for bundling AFDs, but the article Egypt Lawson, on the proprietor of this establishment, should be bundled in here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is up for PROD. If you want to de-PROD it and "bundle" the AFD, the "cleanest" way is to ignore all rules and "close" this AFD with "close for administrative reasons, will be re-listed as part of a multiple-article AFD" and start over. In the new AFD put a comment linking back to this AFD. If you are not an administrator put "(non-administrator closing this AFD)" before or after the text above. Another option is to just start a whole new AFD for just her and put comments in both AFDs linking to each other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No longer relevant, as Egypt Lawson has been speedily deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2013 (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaella Fico[edit]

Raffaella Fico (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)

Completing nomination for anonymous editor 93.186.23.81, whose rationale was posted on the article's talk page and is included verbatim below. Relevant guidelines to consider include the General Notability Guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people). On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaella Fico does not meet Wikipedia/English Wikipedia's guidline for notability. 93.186.23.81 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Appears non-notable other than in her relation with Mario Balotelli, and that is covered sufficiently in his article. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you had spent a couple of minutes to make a quick search before voting here you would have found that appearances are deceptive. Cavarrone (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I was a little too brief with my searching. I don't necessarily vote to keep but removing my delete vote. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, [8], lazy nom and patent lack of WP:BEFORE. A simple search in Google News reveals hundreds of articles and sources about her in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, well before her relation with Mario Balotelli. Probably she does not deserve this notability but she is indeed notable and she widely meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Cavarrone (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2013 (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) 20:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Web Series About A Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time[edit]

Untitled Web Series About A Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time (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 see no indicia of encyclopedic notability for this recently produced web-series. bd2412 T 14:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep, as per USA Today, who noted it as some of the best web tv in 2012 (here). Might be thin, but it does indicate some notability. There is a mention at Huffington Post as well, but they print anything. Enough to keep? I dunno. At a minimum, it should be merged back over to the Community article, either about the season in which it came up or to the series article itself. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as coverage by reliable third-party sources appear to push this across the verifiability thresholds. In addition to the sources in the article, there's coverage here, here, here, here, here, and beyond. - Dravecky (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources that are anything more than borderline are only discussing the web series in the context of Community (where it is an in-universe gag) or Doctor Who (of which it is a parody). bd2412 T 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per above!, Do something useful instead of nominating NOTABLE articles! Davey2010 Talk to me! 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is notable, it is on the very borderline of it. As for your suggestion that I "do something useful", I would invite you to look over my last four-hundred thousand edits on this project and decide for yourself whether I have done anything useful here. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good deal of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2013 (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) 02:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Carr III[edit]

Archie Carr III (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)

Does not meet WP:Notability Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Archie Carr (his father; the son is mentionned on the page) 84.97.218.75 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)— 84.97.218.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note - the Archie Carr article does lack sources, but the man himself is clearly notable, with a host of memorial funds, student awards, preserves usw named after him 84.97.218.75 (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)— 84.97.218.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note (again) - there is also a short page for Archie Carr III's mother, Marjorie Harris Carr, focusing on her action as a conservationist and militant, with arguable notability as distinguished by the Florida Women's Hall of Fame. All in all, Archie Carr III seems to have had a quite honorable but unremarkable career following squarely in the footsteps of his way more famous parents. Seems to me worthy of mention in his parents' legacy, but not his own page. Currently mentionned in Archie Carr:Legacy, but the Archie Carr article is hardly more than a stub, and not properly edited. It's a "High-importance biography (science and academia) article", so if someone is competent in this field, it should be an opportunity to better it. 84.97.218.128 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)— 84.97.218.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Not notable--a Google search does not suggest this as a redirect is very valid. Create it if you like. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Spijker[edit]

Hans Spijker (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 notability outside the band. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 13:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom - no evidence of individual notability. I also thing a redirect to Dead Head would be reasonable. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dead Head. No individual notability demonstrated. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete: not a happening term. Three deletes and no arguments for keeping: I see no reason to relist. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperphacosorbitomyopicosis[edit]

Hyperphacosorbitomyopicosis (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)

Cannot find a human reference for this term on pubmed, though the reference to diabetes and the incoming links are clearly suggestive of a human phenomenon. additionally, one of the few links i could find for this phenomenon (itself not WP:MEDRS), this article, does not suggest that it has anything to do with accumulation of sorbitol. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 02:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The term "Hyperphacosorbitomyopicosis" is composed of hyper (excess)+ phaco (eye lens)+ sorbito (a sugar)+ myopic (nearsightedness)+ osis (disease) and supposed to mean nearsightedness due to increased blood sugar (sorbitol). Abnormal lens changes (including nearsightedness) are well-known in diabetes but they don’t have such a name and I have never heard such a strange term. I looked through Yanoff's ophthalmology textbook (ISBN:9780323043328) and Lens&Cataract AAO (ISBN:9781615251186) and couldn't find Hyperphacosorbitomyopicosis in their index, neither in pubmed ([9]). The wiki page cites an article ([10]) as reference but the article has not mentioned Hyperphacosorbitomyopicosis. Unfortunately, google search results are not reliable because almost all of them cite wikipedia as their source.Kiatdd (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is either a good faith original research effort on the part of a new editor or a well-conceived hoax. The editor has only made 5 edits[[11]] all related to or insertion of wikilinks to Hyperphacosorbitomyopicosis .Wlmg (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source that is not a Wikipedia mirror it's on page 6 of this pdf [12]--Wlmg (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is related to ophthalmology. Unfortunately, optometrist websites like the one you mentioned (nova scotia association of optometrists) and like this one([13]) are not reliable. We have comprehensive textbooks of ophthalmology (AAO is actually 14 volumes), pubmed (over 20 million articles), and medical dictionaries (such as Dorlands, check the result ([14]). There is no mention of 'Hyperphacosorbitomyopicosis' in ophthalmology literature. Kiatdd (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (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) 02:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew M. Seaman[edit]

Andrew M. Seaman (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 established as notable. Might be a notable journalist in a few years, but not now. Some sources are primary (personal web page.) Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No in-depth sourcing in reliable sources, as is pointed out in the AfD. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter John Ross[edit]

Peter John Ross (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 subject fails the WP:BASIC threshold, namely for lack of substantial coverage by reliable third parties. There's plenty of exceedingly local coverage (especially the Clintonville Booster), passing mention, and PR stories, though. This subject also fails WP:CREATIVE because the same can be said for his work. He does exist, but reliable sources don't indicate any significance. JFHJr (㊟) 19:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the user wants to claim the coverage is solely local by the Clintonville Booster, there is substantial national and international media coverage on Peter John Ross. I don't their opinion of the work itself bares any relevance to the articles inclusion on wikipedia.

See also as reliable 3rd party sources: VIDEOMAKER MAGAZINE http://www.videomaker.com/article/13043/2/

THE VILLAGE VOICE http://www.villagevoice.com/2000-02-01/film/building-to-fever-pitches/1/

and screenprints of articles from international magazines http://www.sonnyboo.com/images/computerarts_bg.jpg http://www.sonnyboo.com/press/digitalvideo.jpg http://www.horrorsofwarmovie.com/images/press/markee-article.jpg

Lest we forget Wikipedia itself interview Peter John Ross http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_author_and_filmmaker_Peter_John_Ross

Please ban this individual from continually editing my page, please. Also, it is not exactly fair for someone to change the entry from "Short Films" to "Youtube videos" to attempt to belittle the many film festivals each of those short films played at world wide - as is verifiable on IMDB on each listing for RELEASE DATES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnyboo (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Sonnyboo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • The Village Voice article is a fine example of passing mention, lack of biographical detail, and coverage of another topic entirely. The jpg entitled digital video is not substantial coverage of Peter John Ross (it doesn't even mention him). The horrorsofwarmovie url is broken and unarchived as far as I know. As for the archived videomaker article, the subject apparently writes for videomaker, so it's not actually third party as claimed above, but reporting on someone who publishes on videomaker. The jpg computerarts is decent, but isn't enough alone (multiple reliable sources?).
Finally, there are clear WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:AUTO and WP:OWN issues going on, compounded by an utter failure to understand that IMDB and Youtube aren't reliable sources, especially for establishing notability and significance of biographical content regarding living persons. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I can include more references http://www.sonnyboo.com/press/videomaker-bg.jpg Which is an article and interview with Peter John Ross before he started writing for them.

http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/markee.jpg Markee magazine which mentions Peter John Ross

http://www.sonnyboo.com/press/res.jpg RES magazine interview with Peter John Ross

http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_6234.html another interview

At no time is Youtube used as verification of anything. IMDB can reliably state if a film is played at any festivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.162.214 (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first link there appears to be the same as the videomaker article you previously offered. Passing mentions are almost worthless when it comes to establishing notability; I'll ignore those. The RES interview is more substantial, but the content is the same as WP:BLPSPS, an example of Ross speaking about Ross (as opposed to a third party doing it). Same goes for the Moviesonline interview, with ample WP:BLPSPS content; the fact that the website is "The Latest Movie News & Reviews By Fans & For Fans" and says "We are a fan site" takes it down a peg or two from squarely reliable reporting to start with (see WP:CRUFT). IMDB is user-generated and is categorically unreliable; even if it were reliable for showings, as you assert, dates of showings alone do not establish notability, nor do they comprise substantial coverage. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then why did WIKIPEDIA interview Peter John Ross if he isn't noteworthy enough for.... wikipedia? http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_author_and_filmmaker_Peter_John_Ross

I believe your interest in deleting this article is personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.162.214 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who deleted all the IMDB links? And why if this isn't personal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.162.214 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I wish to address the comments from Woodywoody1 on 3 April 2013:

>>I have done some investigation into this article about film maker Peter John Ross. I am questioning why this article is on wikipeida. It also appears, after reading some of this man's writing that he wrote the article himself. >>

I did not write the article myself. I have modified it, but that's it.

>>>While he released a feature film Horrors of War the film did not sell, at all.

It sold over 300,000 units worldwide.

>>>>It was panned by critics, having a 2 out 10 star rating.

Yes, but that changes not the notability of an internationally released film.

>>>>External documentation shows that Ross claims to have "worldwide distribution" which is actually just an account with Amazon.com.

There is no such documentation because the film has been released by multiple distribution companies worldwide. http://horrorsofwar.sonnyboo.com/postergallery.php contains scans and release images of the DVD art by various companies from countries such as Japan, Belgium, Sweden, UK, etc. Horrors of War is not a self released title and is represented by Hollywood Wizard (now Voyde Pictures) for worldwide sales http://www.voydepix.com/video/horrors-of-war/ and was released in the U.S. by Maverick Entertainement http://www.maverickentertainment.cc/filmdetail.php?ProductID=667

>>>>The magazine he writes for Videomaker, has a circulation of 17,000 people.

Videomaker is a trade magazine and I cannot speak to their circulation.

>>>This man is not notable, nor does he deserve to be given the status of notability since he has clearly not earned it. I personally know people with much prolific careers who have not been able to retain a Wikipedia page.

Thus revealing the true intent of these edits and submission - purely a personal opinion and gripe that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

I have made my statements with honesty and external references to back up my claims. The users here are clearly making a personal bias and editing the article to defame or harass the individual.

70.62.162.214 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Peter John Ross[reply]


Also, I noted that someone not only removed the Wikinews interview and the IMDB links, most likely to 'make the case' that the subject is less noteworthy than facts state.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_author_and_filmmaker_Peter_John_Ross

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0743748/

http://www.amazon.com/Peter-John-Ross/e/B002OT56TU/ref=sr_tc_2_0

Additional article to establish notability from printed press include:

MOVIEMAKER MAGAZINE mention: http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/press/moviemaker.jpg

PENNYBLOOD MAGAZINE http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/press/pennyblood1.jpg http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/press/pennyblood2.jpg http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/press/pennyblood3.jpg http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/press/pennyblood4.jpg http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/press/pennyblood5.jpg


MARKEE MAGAZINE (separate from previously mentioned article) http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/press/markee-article.jpg http://www.sonnyboo.com/images1/press/markee.jpg

and the Horrors of War movie site is archived at http://horrorsofwar.sonnyboo.com

Also, just for clarification purposes - All the short films that appear on YouTube have played at film festivals before being uploaded to the site throughout the years 1999-2013. To specifically cite that the movies now appear on Youtube as a lack of relevance has no bearing on the history and validation of the individual pieces.

I wish to complain that this is nothing more than someone's attempt to have the article removed more for personal reasons than any valid ones.

70.62.162.214 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Peter John Ross[reply]


Also I noted that they removed all the awards AND their references, again to make the subject appear less relevant. Please see prior version of this article as verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.162.214 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links above are to (as mentioned) articles from print scanned. Some publications do not have websites or are no longer in business.

User SONNYBOO is Peter John Ross. http://www.videomaker.com/article/13484 http://www.videomaker.com/article/13743 http://www.videomaker.com/article/15332 http://www.videomaker.com/article/15658 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_author_and_filmmaker_Peter_John_Ross

Someone is editing the original article, removing all links and references to 3rd part sources for the intent purpose of getting the article removed. I do not think this is fair and the article should revert back to what it was before April 1st, 2013.

I fail to see how someone can be interviewed for Wikinews but not qualify for Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.162.214 (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Walls of text and contentious arguments are not going to disguise the fact that the subject seems to thoroughly lack significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and so fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Almost every single reference and link given here and in the article are either self-generated content, circular references or passing mentions at best. And arguing about established guidelines about what is and isn't reliable or relevant is problematic at best. No prejudice to reversing my !vote, as always, if someone comes up with breakthrough evidence of notability. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To the IP address adding all the text above, improving the actual article is a better way to save the article. It is important to use WP:RS, not links to wikinews, amazon or to organizations/publications he is associated with. See Wikipedia:Help desk for any questions. SalHamton (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is always a bad sign when the AfD defense is longer than the article. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Johnson (singer)[edit]

Justin Johnson (singer) (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 sign of meeting WP:NMUSIC. Article is sourced to weak sources, including some that do not mention the information supposedly being sourced. Gnews hits for "Justin Johnson" gospel are limited to article on taking fourth place in a talent show at age seventeen, and a few mentions which are not necessarily (in some cases, definitely not) this Justin Johnson and would not give any notability if they did (confirmation notice, etc.) Top ghits are self-published, databases, or not-that-Justin Johnston. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I deleted a couple of references when deleting some copyvio (of the singer's site), but it included such things as this Google Books result for a book index that happened to contain the words "Justin", "Johnson", "gospel", and "singer" on the page, albeit with no reference to a Justin Johnson. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what they are saying weak sources when all other artists are using the same sources like IMDB, allmusic, myspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjohnsononline (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 April 2013

No reason to delete this article when sources have been listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjohnsononline (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 April 2013

— Justinjohnsononline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -Not to mention the evident COI username. 80.168.237.80 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While IMDb and allmusic are fine in establishing that someone exists and has some credits, neither established notability, which is a requirement for a musician to be the subject of a Wikipedia page. You should read up on our notability standards for musicians. Additionally, some statements of facts in the article are sourced to things that simply don't show those facts - for example, a claim that the artist recorded with a different artist is sourced to this page, which makes no claim that they recorded together, but merely shows that they once appeared in a picture together. Much of the information in the article has no source given... and one statement, about what the artist supposedly said on turning to vegetarianism, appears curiously to be lifted from sourced material in an article on a different musician. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In fact, this could easily be speedily deleted under CSD A7. Apart from the lack of suitable sources, the article does not even make any serious claim of importance, the biggest claim to significance the article makes is "He has performed with many popular artists". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and NMUSIC. Non notable per Wiki standards. Cavarrone (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2013 (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. Secret account 03:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realty Mogul[edit]

Realty Mogul (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 fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Realty Mogul. Has links but Relies on references to press releases, reprints, announcements and trivial coverage or mentions. It's nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denyse Tontz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Denyse Tontz (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:ENT (does not have two notable roles) and WP:GNG (IMDb and youtube are not independent reliable sources). SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Denyse Tontz has notable roles like her role in Big Time Rush and as of right now Dog with a Blog. Right now I'm looking for reliable sources, give me time. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Their are several pages that are not sourced. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, other stuff exists. The "regular characters" are clearly not the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" required by WP:ENT (one is simply included in an extensive list at Big Time Rush, the other (in Dog With a Blog) isn't even mentioned. The "in-depth coverage" is in a blog, not a reliable source. The "starring role" in All My Children is not in the All My Children you've heard of (on ABC). That show ended two years ago. Another company bought the rights to the name and plans to release a revival online. As for it being a "starring role", I see no indication of that. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the in-depth source says she will "star" in All My Children playing the role of Miranda Montgomery. The We Love Soaps source, producer of the Inside Soap Awards, is very reliable source per WP:SOURCES as it has editorial control over its content. That it's in blog format (as is TMZ.com and Gawker) is irrelevant to its reliability and independence of the topic per WP:SOURCES. Become familiar with WP:NEWSBLOG.--Oakshade (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm familiar with NEWSBLOG. However, I see nothing to indicate that the welovesoaps.com blog is connected to Inside Soap which runs the Inside Soap Awards. I do see that Miranda Montgomery has been played by two actors and three actresses so far. Only one is notable (for winning a Young Artist Award on another show). The role of Montgomery, the only significant role so far (if it turns out to be significant), hasn't happened yet (and had previously been reported as being played by another non-notable actress). - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose Deletion - A hastily unwarranted nomination by an editor who has an unfortunate habit of preemptively clubbing baby seals with speedy deletion and AfD and other aggressive deletionism rather than contribute in expanding articles--as in this case within two hours after the article was created while the creator was still working to improve it. As an inclusionist, I'd let the creator continue improving the article (as he or she was doing and has been doing) for a short time before making an executioner's judgment on merits--although prima facie, 4 film roles passes the WP:ENT notability test. IMHO, this was definitely not worthy of wasting anyone's time with AfD, and I'd advise the nominating editor to realize it's in poor form to tear down a house while it's being built or to not give a new article a chance to grow. Sometimes it's best to let contributors contribute and see where it goes instead of being so deadset on imposing a draconian presence of the rule of law that strangles contributions and frustrates the contributors. Wikipedia doesn't need any more woeful Pharisees driving away contributors. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please comment on content not editors. Your dispute with me does not belong here. (This article had been previously deleted via AfD. With no reliable sources in the article and no indication her status had changed your "hastily unwarranted" claims are out of line.) - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT This article was also kept after an AfD (1st) and deleted after an AfD with two participants (with comments that it wasn't a decent consensus), you might want to tell the entire story instead of leaving out inconvenient facts. I explained my reasons on content, and I think your AfD nomination is abusive against an editor who just barely started the article before you assaulted it. Quite frankly, I really care little of your opinion because your only contribution seems to be abusing those who actually contribute with hasty assaults of AfD, tag bombing, and other dickishness. Stop acting like Nero--stop abusing contributors. Lastly, you shouldn't be abusing commenters here just because they disagree with you, so please, respect other people's well-intentioned comments here and stop trying to abuse them into silence. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first AfD was in 2009. In addition to the possibility that consensus can change, I did disagree with the original AfD as I directly discussed in the second AfD. Further, the first AfD was based on significantly different criteria[15] which existed before WP:BLP was anywhere near its current form.[16]. That you are unsatisfied with the second AfD (now that you are here) is immaterial. Discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned my two cents on content, but simply because you disagree you continue disrespect it and imply my views don't matter on that basis alone...which is quite presumptuous of you. I disrespect you and continue to think low of you because you smugly think you need to comment on my opinion of this article as if your conceited abuse will change my mind. I could care less what you think. To me, you're nothing more than another Douglas C. Neidermeyer. Stop thinking you can continue to abuse people who disagree with you like myself and Oakshade, stop abusing people who actually contribute content.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing whether or not the subject page should be deleted. Please limit your discussion here to that issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then stop harassing people because they voted to keep the article. You alone are your own problem. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing whether or not the subject page should be deleted. Please limit your discussion here to that issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing those "additional significant roles and coverage". I see a blog and a role that doesn't seem to have happened yet. This AfD was started on an entertainer whose prior article was deleted after an AfD with no additional roles noted, sourced entirely to the subject's own website and youtube. Now we have a claim of a future role and a blog. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually significant Dog With a Blog role and the starring All My Children role were new, but you immediately put a speedy deletion tag citing WP:CSD G4 anyway which of course was factually incorrect. It appears you just got mad somebody created an article you AfD'd, didn't even read the newly created version and just attempted to quickly delete it. The removal of the speedy deletion tag was appropriate. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dog With a Blog role does not, IMO, appear to be significant. In the main article for that show, the character is merely listed. In the episode list, the character is mentioned in two episodes. I see no indication of significance. When nominated for deletion, the article barely lists the forthcoming internet version of All My Children role. If you believe I had some way of comparing the previously deleted version with the new version, I would be interested to hear what that is. If you believe I "got mad", I am wholly unaware of any indication of that. Rather, I was faced with a recreation of a deleted article on a BLP citing zero independent reliable sources. This, IMO, still seems to be the case. The blog does not give any indication of having the relationship you've indicated. If it does, please explain. At the moment, we have a WP:BLP about a subject who is of questionable notability sourced entirely to her person website, youtube and a blog. Rather than discussing me, please address this concern. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhD, you're just banging your head on a wall and keep shifting why you think this article should be deleted. You first claimed WP:CSD G4 but you've given that up and now claiming a reliable source is someone's "self-published blog" simply because it's in blog format (AfD every article sourced by TMZ.com if you really think anything in blog format is not a reliable source). You either really aren't familiar with WP:NEWSBLOG or just choosing to ignore it as well as all of WP:RS which explains that if a source has editorial control over its content and has fact checking, it is a reliable source. It's like you're looking for any excuse to delete this article on a notable person and trying new methods when your earlier ones didn't work.--Oakshade (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we have a BLP on a person of, at best, marginal notability. You have added a blog which you assert is responsible for an award and is produced by a notable magazine. Our articles on the magazine and the award attribute the award to the magazine and do not mention the blog you say is connected to both. The blog itself makes no mention of the magazine or the award. If this is a reliable source, it is a step toward "substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject". Otherwise, it's a blog. At present, we have a BLP sourced to the subject's personal page, youtube and a blog (with no indication that WP:NEWSBLOG applies). Please demonstrate that this blog is related to the magazine and award, as you have asserted. Then, we will have, finally, substantial coverage in at least one independent reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're following your logic; delete an article because you think a source is a personal blog due to your belief that blog doesn't produce a soap opera awards show. Wow. All you had to do was look at the We Love Soaps "About" page to learn more about it. Anyway, per WP:SOUCES, it's a reliable source and not someone's "self published blog" as you are desperately trying to claim. --Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than twisting my words, see if you can follow: WP:ENT (a guideline) would, if she passes it, suggest that she is probably notable. If she fails that, she probably is not. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I do not see that she has had such roles.
WP:GNG (a policy) calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Her personal webpage is certainly not independent. Youtube is not a reliable source. This leaves the blog. You stated "We Love Soaps source, producer of the Inside Soap Awards". Inside Soap Awards says "run by Inside Soap magazine" with no mention of the blog. Inside Soap also fails to mention the blog. The blog does not mention a connection to the magazine or the award. So I asked you to clarify. Repeatedly. Finally, you point to the blog's "About" page which does not mention the magazine or the award.
To source this BLP, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:GNG Is this blog one of the sources we need? Maybe. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Wikipedia:Blp#Avoid_self-published_sources You have yet to demonstrate that this blog is subject to the magazine's full editorial control. So far, you haven't shown any connection. Please demonstrate that this blog is subject to the magazine's full editorial control. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're making the strange demand that in order for the We Love Soaps source to be reliable, it must be run by Inside Soap magazine. Say what? Uh, no, We Love Soaps is independent of Inside Soap magazine. It just produces Inside Soap's awards show. It seems you're not familiar with awards shows productions, but its customary for organizations that sponsor awards shows to hire and contract other companies to produce them. (Edit: Apologize for my confusion between the Indie Soap Awards and Inside Soap Awards. We Love Soaps produces the Indie Soap Awards.) (here's the Indie Soap Awards blog that shows it's produced by We Love Soaps. And despite what you claim, the We Love Soaps "About" page does explain that they produce the Indie Soap Awards - near the top.) Besides, at least the Los Angeles Times and Daytime Confidential reference We Love Soaps as a reliable source. [17][18][19][20] If the Los Angeles Times considers it a reliable source, so does Wikipeida. If you're clinging to the fantasy that that organization is someone's personal blog, you're at odds with the Los Angeles Times and just banging your head on a wall.--Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)My "strange demand" is based on WP:BLP's strange demand that we cite blogs in BLP only when the blog is under the the full editorial control of a reliable news organization. (Clarifications: LA Times is not citing the blog, they mention it. Daytime Confidential redirects to Zap2it. I see nothing to indicate that this website's mentions of the blog in question make the blog a reliable source. I still do not see anything to support your claim that the blog produces the Inside Soap Awards or that this would sidestep WP:BLP's demand. The apparent producer of the awards, insidesoap.co.uk, does not mention this blog anywhere that I can find.) Apparently I misunderstood you. Your repeated references to WP:NEWSBLOG seemed to imply that the blog is part of a "newspaper, magazine, or other news organization". As the magazine was the only one we've discussed... Hmm, well, I'm unable to determine what you are referring to. In any case, please explain which "news organization" this blog is subject to the full editorial control of. Wikipedia:Blp#Avoid_self-published_sources
Holy crap: "And despite what you claim, the We Love Soaps "About" page does explain that they produce the Indie Soap Awards - near the top." If you say something incorrect and I dispute it, you cannot change your statement and take me to task for disputing it. Really, WTF. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And We Love Soaps is a reliable news source organization as it has editorial control over its content that's subject to fact checking. It doesn't have to be under the "control" of yet another news organization. Even you admit the Los Angeles Times mentions it. Actually it fact sources it, confirming its reliability. Your fantasy that We Love Soaps is a "self published blog" is yours alone.--Oakshade (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We Love Soaps is a blog, as you have repeatedly confirmed. The have a staff of two people. You have repeatedly claimed it is reliable under WP:NEWSBLOG, though you have not indicated what newspaper, magazine or news organization this blog is related to. {"Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs.") WP:BLP directly prohibits the use of such a source unless "the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
(Incidentally, LA Times does not cite the blog, it quotes "Roger Newcomb, founder of the We Love Soaps website". Quoting John Smith of the Daily Scandal Rag would not make Smith or the Rag a reliable source, it would merely verify that Smith said whatever he said. Heck, here's the LA Times quoting the publishers of the National Enquirer.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that counter was so weak, I'll just let that one go. Let the others analyze this all and decide for themselves. Good night. --Oakshade (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need multiple reliable sources. The closest you've found is the blog. That should be telling you something. It is simply too soon to have a BLP on her. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence that the We Love Soaps news source is somebody's personal self published blog is now a gigantic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're constant desperate repeating "that's a blog" simply because it's in blog format is just banging your head against a wall. As noted by another user above, you've got problems, SummerPhD.--Oakshade (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated referral to WP:NEWSBLOG confirms you felt it was a blog until very recently. BLPs need solid sources, not IMDb, youtube and blogs. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy until Tontz is on AMC long enough—in a significant-enough role—to meet WP:ENT; currently, the article's subject does not (Miranda Montgomery has also long been tagged for notability). Miniapolis 13:32, 25 April 2013 (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) 20:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roy William Blake[edit]

Roy William Blake (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 by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

This afd is similar to 2 Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs articles sent to Afd yesterday (Jostein Helge Bernhardsen, Olav Berstad), and 2 Category:Asian diplomat stubs (Miyoko Akashi, Khalnazar Agakhanov) sent today, that may be non-notable. AFAIK Blake, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

The intention of these Afds is to see whether diplomat biographies should be subject to the same rigorous conditions for establishing notability as other articles on writers, artists, scientists, politicians, sportsmen etc., or whether they are ‘automatically notable’ irrespective of their personal achievements. Kleinzach 12:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No inherent or presumed notability, but passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage of Blake and his family in reliable sources over an extended period of time: 1954,1954,1954,1956,1957,1958,1958,1960,1964,1964,1966. I also found some references to his war service[21][22], which might be covered in more depth in off-line sources. It also looks like he may have written for Saturday Night[23], but I can't be sure it's the same person. Pburka (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure those sources establish notability, per WP:NOTNEWS. We really need, at least, stories that are about the subject of the article. Stories that quote him or mention him in passing are not enough. Only the tiny appointment notice is actually about him, and I don't think that counts. Three of the stories are quaintly anachronistic pieces about his wife. Unless we count her as notable, we certainly can't count him Formerip (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... I have to agree with Former IP here. The sources that Pburka gives are not really enough to establish notability. What we want are sources that actually discuss him in some depth, preferably in the context of discussing what he did as a diplomat. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first four links are articles specifically about Blake or his wife. The fifth is about a report he published in "the current issue of Foreign Trade". The sixth and seventh are about an interview with Blake. The next is about a trade mission he led. The ninth is a human interest story about Blake's time in Jamaica, and the tenth is an announcement of his appointment to Germany. The eleventh is just a quote, but I think the first ten are far more than passing references. Pburka (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on account of adequate sources or, failing that, merge with List of Canadian diplomats. There is no sense in losing this information and no policy requiring it. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject surely passes the GNG, but I would argue that the lead diplomats (chiefs of mission, which is to say, in modern usage, ambassadors) representing major nations, especially to other major nations, on a more than temporary basis, are notable by position alone, in the same way as are members of national legislatures. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think we should create a policy distinguishing "major nations" from all other nations in determining whether an ambassador meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I go back to the position that ambassadors (especially today) do not possess independent policy-making authority and primarily serve as "spokespersons" for their government. Lists of ambassadors to a particular country is the best way to serve the mission of Wikipedia, unless the subjects independently meet WP:GNG or the additional criteria described in WP:DIPLOMAT. Enos733 (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the criteria in WP:DIPLOMAT, as they stand today, are counter-productive. The bar they set is, for most intents and purposes, higher than WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A member of, say, the Utah House of Representatives is notable by virtue of position alone, but the U.S. Ambassador to Italy is not? There's something wrong with this picture. Kestenbaum (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it passes the WP:GNG per the sources found by Pburka. It is a little bizarre, but it does seem like there was a good bit of local press coverage of his activities as a diplomat in Australia. RayTalk 15:53, 21 April 2013 (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) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Breton (filmmaker)[edit]

Stéphane Breton (filmmaker) (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)

Reads like a promo and CV for the filmmaker. No sources and I can't see any real claim to notability. I initially PROD'd it under BLOP for no sources but it was since removed. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 12:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed the PROD because I added a French source confirming 1959 dob, which article creator Birdienum then deleted leaving the BLP sourceless again. I have restored it. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, The proposed article is a faithful english translation from the approved and sourced original french version. In any case, it is supposed to be a cv of Stephane Breton but and an informative and timely document representing Breton's internationally recognized work.

In the english version, I have included a number of notable references that have been deleted without notice. These references appear in the original French version.

At last, being a wikipedia beginner and not a native English speaking person, I beg your indulgence and a little more help in creating and sharing positive advices for our article. Best,
--Birdienum (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per EdJohnston above. Sufficient French sources as filmmaker. Also second set of sources as as anthropologist. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Going to have to agree with In ictu oculi and EdJohnston on this one. The French sources do speak quite a bit. I think the article suffers from horrible over-promotion, NPOV issues, and puffery, but those are editorial and surmountable problems, not inclusion criteria problems. Mkdwtalk 07:01, 22 April 2013 (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. Secret account 03:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Research Institute[edit]

Richmond Research Institute (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 University research clearinghouse. No third party sources, no real claim to notability. GrapedApe (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I created the article but the entity itself seems to have completed disappeared at this time, so no biggie. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The topic fails WP:GNG: no reliable sources seem to be available. Furthermore, the institute's web site is no longer functioning. - tucoxn\talk 01:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge very concisely to the university article. No reason is given why that would be inappropriate; I agree it does not justify a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 21 April 2013 (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. Secret account 03:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salah el-Moncef[edit]

Salah el-Moncef (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)

Lacks extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also the person has contacted us asking to insert POV material on minor papers which convinces me that he really isn't a notable writer.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All the coverage in the article (and what little else I can find) is in some way connected to the subject - in the absence of independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Also nothing to suggest a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails GNG" isn't really an argument -- it's what we're trying to determine here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is one, although it's a bit of an out-there position. Some editors believe that the GNG is the only legitimate notability criterion, and that failing it is sufficient cause for deletion. RayTalk 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- varied and somewhat deep holdings of his books determined via Worldcat + a reputable publisher. Not sufficient as a shoo-in without other references, but certainly not an unknown either. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no cause for notability under WP:PROF and WP:BIO, I don't see anything to suggest a pass of WP:AUTHOR either - the highest holding is only 50 libraries for one of his books, with no hint of a review. Gscholar lists precisely 4 citations of said book, 3 of which are from articles by the author, and one of which comes from a long list with no commentary whatsoever. RayTalk 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passes none of the categories. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2013 (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. Secret account 03:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Kwik[edit]

Jim Kwik (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)

Marketing-style text, no independent sources that could be used to estimate notability Tournesol (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, only source is own website, purpose appears solely advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, it wasn't my purpose but I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heron89 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are insufficient independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Peacock (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources to support notability. And there appears to be little or no encyclopedic content here, just a promotion of the subject's web sites. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JacobyEasox (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- claim to notability is weak enough that PROD should have been tried first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. Elmo420v (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a WP:SNOW agreement here. If anyone would like to do the honours... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Yunshui under criterion A10. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim kwik[edit]

Jim kwik (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)

Marketing-style text, no independent sources that could be used to estimate notability Tournesol (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2013 (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 (G3). Alexf(talk) 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Garcia[edit]

Joey Garcia (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)

IMHO, I think this short biography is an hoax, because it states that this "physicist" won the Max Planck Medal in 1963, but it's wrong: I checked the list in the official site and there's no recipients with this name. Moreover, the author of this article made this edit 6 years ago, where he replaced the 1962 recipient with a link to this article, and this error lasted for almost 2 years. Mess (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax. There's precisely nothing out there on this supposed physicist, and since most of the creator's other edits were vandalism... Nice find. Sideways713 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems to be a hoax. The only references I found about this supposed person on the internet repeat that he won the Max Planck Medal in 1963. They either acknowledged the Wikipedia article or did no research to check whether Garcia won this award. I checked, as Mess did, and there never was a Joey Garcia who won this award - not in 1963 and not ever. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2013 (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. Secret account 03:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natarajan Sankaran[edit]

Natarajan Sankaran (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. I haven't been able to find a single third-party reference related to this person. As I mentioned earlier Sarku, there HAVE to be third-party references for this page to remain. Shashwat986 → talk 09:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only sources are Facebook, Youtube and Wikipedia itself. Delete, delete, delete. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable.Jussychoulex (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A7. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abe unwin[edit]

Abe unwin (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)

Nonsense Tournesol (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2013 (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. Strong consensus to keep the article. CheersCoffeepusher (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faulkes Telescope South[edit]

Faulkes Telescope South (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 scientific instrument. Only independent ref has no in depth coverage of the instrument. Merging to Liverpool Telescope or Siding Spring Observatory also possible. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Since it has made at least one significant discovery, is used by astronomers from around the world and belongs to a notable network of telescopes used for educational purposes. It is part of what has been described as one of the world's leading observatories. I found and added two reliable sources which mention its use. It is still on the List of large optical telescopes. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Shiftchange. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: a 2m robotic instrument that is associated with a significant number of academic papers. This isn't just some back-yard telescope, and there is plenty of evidence of notability. Praemonitus (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be great if someone would put forward an argument based on WP:GNG which reqiures a subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a list of sites containing coverage of the telescope: [24], [25], [26], [27], and nearly two hundred articles on Google Scholar containing "Faulkes Telescope South" showing the extent the telescope is used in academic papers. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sites have in depth coverage of this telescope as required by WP:GNG. They have data, video, animations and results derived from the telescope, none of which count for WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article should be in WP. It's a well known working scientific instrument. It is a telescope that is being used to search for exoplanet's and it's only a matter of time before it fully satisfies WP:GNG. The telescope has been in numerous citations in Google Scholar and several dozen books on Google Books. It's a keeper. scope_creep (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable telescope. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as it's a well-known educational project. I'm active in astronomy outreach, and Faulkes (North and South both) is a household name there; it would be weird for it to not have its own WP article. Markus Pössel (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a well known deletionist but this article gives me pause. The other editors have found some reliable sources and they are the kind you want, NASA, BBC, etc. Mkdwtalk 06:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes don't really address the reasons for deletion; many of them fall under WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM, and others are just vague arguments for why it should be kept without any reference to a policy or guideline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of London school bus routes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of London school bus routes (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:N, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. The article is purely a directory of primary source data and lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and these routes are not even public transport as the public cannot generally use them. They are private contractual arrangements between education authorities and bus companies and no more notable for Wikipedia than a list of Tesco delivery routes. Charles (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I disagree that this list isn't notable, and you're not going to get any significant secondary/tertiary coverage concerning any bus route, despite bus routes in large, world-class cities being notable. It's not a directory, it's a list. It's not a travel guide, since it's only local travel where the primary focus is on the route itself. Now, where I do think you would have a very solid argument is concerning the nature of the list. Is the list maintainable? I have my doubts. Public bus routes tend to be rather static, but I know from my experience that school bus routes may change over time, depending on where the kids live, what schools are opening/closing/expanding. Some are added, some are deleted. If it is expected that the list would be unlikely to be maintained, that is a valid argument toward deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is any of this consistent with WP:NOTTRAVEL? Not what Wikipedia should be doing.--Charles (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's a clear contradiction of policy in Roodog2's keep rationale "I disagree that this list isn't notable, and you're not going to get any significant secondary/tertiary coverage concerning any bus route, despite bus routes in large, world-class cities being notable." Our notability policy defines a subject as notable only if it has been noted in significant secondary sources so the lack of them is a lack of notability. The list also fails the policy of WP:NOTTRAVEL which advises we shouldn't have lists of all the shops, hotels, services in a geographical area but should only list a few notable examples in the most appropriate prose article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the list of shops, hotels, and services? And, my vote is a WEAK KEEP, mind you. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a fallacious argument for keeping an article, but since the nom didn't nominate List of bus routes in London, I would like to know what the difference is. My issue with the article, again, is that I quesiton whether the list is a managable list, and that the list can be easily managed, as I said above. Roodog2k (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point exactly, we have no lists of shops or hotels in London, yet here we have a list of all school bus services within London rather than a limited number of notable items in a parent such as Transport in London or London Buses . I can't speak for the nom, but as I've said on other debates there are two problems with List of bus routes in London firstly there are a limited number of secondary sources about the route system in London - This identifies that the system itself may be notable, though not that it should be presented as a list - ideally it should be rewritten as a prose article like Buses in Bristol or merged into London Buses but that's a much longer and complicated discussion than an AfD. Secondly the list is the index to a number of articles for individual routes, deleting it without deleting these individual routes first is likely to leave a large number of orphaned articles - some of the routes are particularly notable and will need to be retained most can probably be deleted without difficulty but again its going to be a longer process than a simple AfD for List of bus routes in London. Once either or both of those discussions have been sorted I would see no problem with deleting that list as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I interpret NOTTRAVEL is this: a travel guide is a synthesis of those items mentioned, but a list of ONE of those items is OK, for the sake of documentation. So, if this were a list of bus routes, that included tourist stops, restaurants, etc., that's a travel guide. This, however, is a list of bus routes for the sake of documenting where the bus routes are. There seems to be a concensus that a "List of bus routes in X place" articles are OK. BUT, and this is a big BUT, I am not sure this list is managable. A list has to be managable. If these routes change yearly, that's a big problem. Roodog2k (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintenance is a big problem, but has never been a convincing argument in AfDs since its argued that things like football stats are updated more regularly - despite this bus route lists seldom are updated even after an AfD where its promised they will be. However to me, not Travel is clear "articles need not list every x,y,or z" unless all said x(s) are independently notable. To date over 80 bus route lists (nearly all of the UK) have been deleted on the basis of this interpretation of NOTTRAVEL and on the fact that they are all primary source based and fail to be noted in secondaries. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Deleting will just end up redlinking pages, of which there are many which use this page. Would it be feasible if it was to divert or be edited where less info is needed and to comply with policies? Also agree with statement that it has no connection to WP:NOTTRAVEL, however partly agree to WP:NOTDIR. Also been looking at previous AfD review, I see nothing wrong with the article that warrants deletion. Tom the Tomato (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many pages would be redlinked? Judging by "What links here" you might think it was thousands but over 2,000 links are via one template Template:London bus routes (transcluded up to 214 times, with up to 70 redirects to the article from every transclusion), A further 1,000 or so are links from discussions in the wikipedia, user, talk mainspaces also because of the repetition of redirects to this article the remaining 7-800 can be compressed down to less than 90 unique articles. So in total 90 articles and 1 template would need to be edited plus 108 redirects to the article deleted it's not a substantial number of links to clean up and could be done semi-automated in a matter of minutes to hours. I see you are an AWB user so it's something either of us could carry out. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i don`t think this article needs to be deleted. It seems nonotable, but it may be a great source of information. I would agree for deletion if someone will make a pages for each route. But as a list it`s good. --DJ EV (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Buses in London are a notable encyclopaedic topic, and school bus routes are a notable component of that. The history sections should be expanded, but the fact that the article is incomplete currently is not a reason to delete it. As for the maintainability of the article, there are very few changes to the bus routes on an ongoing basis and what changes there are tend to be announced at the same time and implemented at approximately the same time which makes updating the article much easier than commercial routes in the rest of the country where operators chop and change them at the drop of a hat. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If school bus routes are a notable component of Buses in London they should be discussed there. Per WP:PRODUCT we should not list every non-notable contract for school buses. An encyclopedic article might be written from secondary sources on provision of school buses in London but it would not be appropriate to include a full route list.--Charles (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - this is a huge list of obscure bus routes, with nothing which attests to the notability of the topic. As such, this is not suitable content for an encyclopedia. There are various websites which publish this sort of information, and there's no need for Wikipedia to also publish it. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How on earth is this indiscriminate? It's a list with a defined criteria for inclusion that corresponds directly with a specific set of routes that are classified and organised as a distinct set by the contracting organisation (TfL). Specifically it covers those buses run solely at school times to get students to and/or from school. It's hardly indiscriminate or arbitrary. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. (1) These lists require maintenance, because they are liable to be changed, but this cannot be guaranteed. (2) WP is not a directory or travel guide. So far London services have been an exception to the general deletion, but I am not sure that there is a logical basis for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LIST. Also, "these routes are not even public transport as the public cannot generally use them" - the public can use these routes. This is exactly the same as the first nomination, which resulted in a keep. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 16:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a styling guideline for lists, grounds for keeping? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant WP:LISTN. It should be noted that the actual previous AFD was a procedural close because the real AFD was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London School Buses. As you can see it was much more contentious. Mkdwtalk 21:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN is even more problematic because to use as a reason for keeping someone should be establishing that the subject has "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" which is another of the nom's grounds for deletion and hasn't been disproved. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is not, as far as I can tell, available for any member of the public to ride. A general article (not a list) might be acceptable. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, the keep camp have two fundamental positions, inherent notability because London buses are notable, and that WP:LISTN says that each entry need not be notable, only that the list subject as a whole is notable. What the keep camp fails to address is that it's becoming a consensus that route listings are not notable. Wikipedia regularly deletes them, and WikiVoyage agrees that it is not content worth keeping. For starters, there are very few independent sources to show notability. The list only has primary sources at the moment. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a directory or guide. All the information save for the 603 route has only route and schedule information and no actual content. It should also be noted that the WikiProject Buses is currently discussing a guideline that would affect bus routes as out of the 115 bus route articles, many have been deleted. Mkdwtalk 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm in favour of keeping all the non-duplicate bus route lists, as a useful way of arranging information that would usually be suitable for inclusion in other articles; I dispute the suggestions that "WP:NOTTRAVEL" is a valid reason, as that is more intended to prevent information or advice that varies from person to person, is excessively trivial or specifically targeted at tourists, or lacks a clearly defined scope; it was probably not intended to be used to single out travel-related articles for special deletionist treatment. I'd say keep, but I think there may be consensus on a wider scale (at AFD and other discussions) to delete these lists, and I can't see why this would be an exception. Peter James (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with most bus articles recently deleted (a lot!) they are just not notable in list format. They would be more so in prose however how useful are these articles to the general public. In the case of this article they would contact the school if they want to use the service. These pages should be on wikia or another site for people interested in buses. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As with last June with the same nom, this is a valid list article per WP:LIST. WP:NOTDIR clearly states is meant for indiscriminate "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This is a very discriminate list and not at all a "repository of a loosely associated topics." I fail to see how a school bus route list is considered a "travel guide." This is much preferable than having individual bus route articles for every bus route in London, although some historic and important ones might be notable in their own right.--Oakshade (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it just for convenience that you sum up NOTDIR using only point 1 and dismiss the other 6 alternative points under which an article can fail policy? Particularly in this case Point 4 where it gives a definition of Directory that can quite happily cover this list and examples that are directly comparable (lists of patent filings, Schedules of Events) - At this point someone usually responds in AfDs claiming that it's not a directory because it doesn't have service times, yet the definition given in that policy gives a minimum listing of an id Number (route number) and a name but states that this can extend up to multiple pieces of information mapped against that ID (as in the case of these entries). And no one is talking about multiple articles for individual routes as there is no evidence that the routes are individually notable either, and there is liable to be a clear out of those next. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which proscribes "excessive listings of statistics". If kept, this sprawling article needs extensive work; the infoboxes should go (or be drastically pruned) to help reduce the large amount of whitespace. Miniapolis 15:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. School bus routes are normal, everyday things. London's school bus routes are no more notable than all of the world's other school bus routes. This isn't even an encyclopedia article, it's a list of information. epzik8 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article on the London school bus system would be suitable for Wikipedia; a list of its routes really isn't. WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 17 April 2013 (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) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gastronomic hierarchy[edit]

Gastronomic hierarchy (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 poorly sourced article could easily be merged into gastronomy, esp. as only 1 of the 6 levels links to an article that deals with this meaning of the term. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I haven't been able to pin down who came up with it, but this half-baked idea hasn't gotten much traction. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find anything better than this page, which discusses usage of these terms but not the notion that they exist in a hierarchy. There might be some merit to adding usage notes to the relevant entries on Wiktionary, but the hierarchy itself seems to be total bunk. Ibadibam (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2013 (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 transwiki to Wikibooks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian feijoada[edit]

Brazilian feijoada (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 real refs provided. the article on Feijoada has an unsourced section on Brazilian feijoada. this belongs on Wikibooks, not here Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sources because I am Brazilian and this is my family's recipe. I would love to maintain this recipe in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.24 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of content is perfect for the Wikimedia Cookbook, and I hope you'll contribute it there! Wikipedia, on the other hand, has policies like Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOTRECIPE, so it's not really a place people go to find and share recipes. Ibadibam (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I start it over to include the recipe in Wikimedia Cookbook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munhozdsl (talk • contribs) 04:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. You can get started by copying the source from the Wikipedia page to this page. Here are their guidelines, and here is their sample layout for recipes. Ibadibam (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the person proposing AFD, i strongly urge you to create this on wikibooks. family recipes are a fantastic subject. I wish i had family recipes.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2013 (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. There really does not seem to be a strong agreement either on (a) whether the coverage provided is significant and (b) whether there's a rebuttable presumption of notability based on her position. The lack of English language sources does not preclude the existence of an article, but does seemingly preclude a conclusive discussion on whether those sources demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 10:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miyoko Akashi[edit]

Miyoko Akashi (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)

Another non-notable diplomat biography per WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

Similar to Khalnazar Agakhanov (below), this is one of about 80 minimal stubs in Category:Asian diplomat stubs that may be non-notable. AFAIK Akashi, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”. A typical minor official, her article was referenced by government reports that proved ephemeral.

This Afd may be opposed by editors who believe that diplomats and other unelected officials have automatic notability (unlike writers, artists, scientists, politicians, sportsmen etc.). Kleinzach 06:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also believe that ambassadors have a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not agree that ambassadors have a presumption of notability. First, ambassadors have generally " been reduced to spokespeople for their foreign offices." In the United States, ambassadors may be career foreign service officers or political appointees. Our guidelines for diplomats state that they must either meet WP:GNG or "who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources." Enos733 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's difficult to see how this satisfies the general notability guidelines given the lack of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that Google News has several pages of results about Miyoko in Lithuanian. I couldn't find anything in Japanese, but that's probably due to my lack of knowledge of the language. Pburka (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person has coverage, there is no rule that the coverage be in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coverage (or even mentions in newspaper articles) does not necessarily meet the standard set in WP:GNG (see aslo WP:NOTNEWS). The criteria is what is in the articles - are the articles about the subject, or are they about a particular event where the subject is mentioned in passing. Enos733 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage must be more than just a passing reference. If we are going to say he is notable for being a diplomat, we need sources that go into some detail as to his activities as a diplomat. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia should have articles on all permanent ambassadors for the same reason it should have articles on all national legislators, judges on national courts, etc. You can call that "inherent notability" if you like, or a presumption that GNG will always be satisfied for such individuals; I really don't care because satisfying notability guidelines (which are a good but not perfect proxy for determining what is or isn't important enough to include) should not be a concern with obviously important subjects such as this, so long as we follow the policies of V, OR, NPOV (which actually are important all the time). Or you can call it an WP:IAR invocation, because deleting articles on permanent ambassadors does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. postdlf (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The diplomatic community is a large one. There are over 200 countries in the world — we are talking about thousands of individuals. Should they all have an automatic right to a Wikipedia article in English? Ambassadors of major countries, in major countries, will normally be well-covered by sources, but ambassadors of minor countries in minor countries — basically running visa and commercial support offices — will only be mentioned by their own official media, or in many cases, just in lists. Having looked through a largish number of these articles, I’ve found found most of the minimal, unreferenced stubs in articles about ambassadors of middle and small-sized countries, usually created by an editor going through a government list (such as Foreign Affairs International Trade Canada [28]). The problem with declaring all ambassadors notable, if that we will then have to automatically list all other unelected officials of equivalent rank. This will gradually turn Wikipedia into something like LinkedIn. Is that really the way we want to go? Kleinzach 03:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many more members of national and sub-national legislatures, but we have already established that they have inherent notability. In any case, most minor nations appoint one ambassador to a collection of countries and only have dedicated ambassadors in major or neighbouring countries. It's consuls who run "visa and commercial support offices", not ambassadors. And what on earth has English got to do with it? English Wikipedia does not discriminate against subjects from non-English-speaking countries. Should we have articles on all other unelected officials of equivalent rank? Yes. Ambassadors hold very senior rank and most officials of a similar rank are indeed notable. Should we have articles on all other unelected officials? No, of course not. Your argument is a pure straw man. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I also really don't get Kleinzach's claim that we "have to automatically" include anything just because we include something else; we can draw whatever lines we deem most reasonable. Nor do I understand the underlying premise, that it is good to delete articles on one category of subjects just to avoid having articles on another category of subjects.

        Further, Kleinzach is conflating a number of completely separate issues. Whether there is enough reliably sourceable content on a subject is not the same as whether it satisfies written notability guidelines, and as a matter of ordinary editing we may decide that some ambassadors should, pending further available information, just be mentioned in a list of office-holders, whether in table form giving just names and dates or with a separate header and brief paragraph for each one like we do with lists of fictional characters. Troutsmack to the nominator for jumping to AFD to determine that with a sledgehammer rather than trying to develop, merge, and/or reformat the content in a way that preserves the information. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subject has not received significant coverage in independent sources, has not participated in any significant world events, and seems to be a decent but undistinguished member of the Japanese diplomatic corps. I would not oppose a merge or redirect to some list of Japanese diplomats, but there isn't notability for a standalone article. RayTalk 16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have any editors fluent in Japanese or Lithuanian searched for sources? I've searched for the Kanji(?) characters listed as her name and found a few relevant hits (e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]) but I'm having trouble interpreting them. Some suggest that she may have had a cabinet position before becoming an ambassador. Others look like tables of contents hinting at greater coverage. However the Google translations are poor so I'm not confident in my interpretation. Pburka (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read Japanese (albeit slowly). As far as I can tell none of the references above are 'news' items, certainly none of them come from a national newspaper or similar. The most substantial item seems to be number 41 which refers to a three page paper on foreign travel safety by the subject. (It seems she has also written a few other articles for journals.) Kleinzach 10:50, 22 April 2013 (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 Janelle Monáe. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lettin' Go[edit]

Lettin' Go (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)

Seems to be a non notable album, notability not established for over a year. Puffin Let's talk! 10:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Album fails WP:NALBUMS. The article also fails to provide any verifiable references to even attempt to justify notability so the article fails WP:RS and WP:V too. If there were references to establish notability of the subject, I'd consider a merge, but as it currently stands, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charon123able (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:30, 15 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youth party tourism[edit]

Youth party tourism (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)

Does not meet Wikipedia Notability standards and is too small an article. The Wikimon (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this marked for deletion? I know it is a very short article, but I hoped to get the ball rolling and get other contributors to write more. Youth party tourism is definitely a big thing, especially here in Denmark where I live, where it receives a lot of media attention and is a relatively big industry. I know it is also big in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfgabdk (talk • contribs) 2013-04-07 10:57:30‎
  • Delete No improvement has been made yet. Article is not encyclopedic enough. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one reference in the article doesn't discuss "Youth party tourism" . Instead, it discusses drunken British young people in Thailand. A Google News Archive search for "youth party tourism" produces nothing. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. There doesn't seem to be much coverage about the phrase "Youth party tourism". Struggling to think of the term for "youths that go abroad to party and binge drink" but this is not it. Funny Pika! 18:45, 17 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaibigan[edit]

Kaibigan (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 appears to be a non-notable student organization at Northwestern University. Edge3 (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WikiHannibal (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOREASON TBrandley 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reason - per WP:ORG the organization is not notable. The events they participated in or won are not notable. It does not seem to be a "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources are trivial or not independent - student newspapers, etc. All of the content can be considered advertising. There are huge numbers of groups, clubs, organizations like this, formal or less formal.It seems that the scope of their activities is NOT national or international in scale which I think is sine qua non for these organizations.. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for the explanation and elaboration. TBrandley 00:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Although we are generally a little lenient with student organizations, I don't see a reason to keep this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:34, 21 April 2013 (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 userfy. Accordingly I've moved the page to user:Psyc452-BFrancisco/Evolutionary psychology of Personality and left a message at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Evolutionary psychology / Psyc452. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychology of Personality[edit]

Evolutionary psychology of Personality (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)

Essay, appears to be original research. InShaneee (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:OR content fork of Evolutionary psychology and Big Five personality traits. See also this discussionStuartyeates (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I applaud students for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. While their course may be assessed by their instructor based on a rubric, Wikipedia editing also has a rubric for what is and is not acceptable. It seems unfortunate that the instructor did not provide students with a rubric for contributing to Wikipedia that discussed article issues. This appears to be original research. --LauraHale (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I do not see evidence provided for why and when this article uses original research. Wikipedia states that OR is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exists." All ideas and assertions in the article come from published, academic sources and research articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-BFrancisco (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The writers have listened to your concerns and have made corrections to better the page. They will continue to do so in order for this page to stay up. Please keep in mind this is a sub-section of Evolutionary Psychology focusing on Personality from an evolutionary perspective in specific detail. This article might contain content that is already discussed on Wikipedia, but it offers an alternative way of incorporating that content by specifically tying it into Personality from an evolutionary psychological perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Psyc452-NLevy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Do Not Delete All information is cited, and all sources relate directly to the material presented. The point of view is neutral and verifiable. It is in accordance with the guidelines of "No original research". The writing has also been improved to be more encyclopedic and paragraphs are written in prose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-LChen (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are three university students all responding to this article from the same class. Their comments should be treated as only ONE, not three, per WP:MEAT. It should also be noted these students likely have a WP:COI regarding this article because the articles involve their own coursework. --LauraHale (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how man or how few they are, or what their COI is, the argument should be judged on its merits. This is not a count of Votes. We expect the author(s) of an article to defend it here--they almost invariably do, and they should not be criticized for it. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • userify. As far as I can tell, most of the content here merely duplicates at an extremely elementary level the information already found in many WP articles on evolutionary psychology. The exception is that the article seems to emphasise and rely on the application of one particular theory of personality, based on one particular source that uses it. This is not likely to be a representative view. I suggest that using a topic as extremely broad as this as a topic for a new WP article in an education program was not a good idea.
I can see no evidence that this course has taken advantage of any of the facilities provided by our educational program. Who is the instructor? Who is the online ambassador? It is normally their role to check topics in advance.
The only reason I am saying userify instead of delete, is that the academic term is not yet over (assuming this is a spring 2013 course),and thee is therefore a prospect of improvement, if the students will get some guidance. I urger the editors who have been writing the article to urge their instructor to get in contact with the program -- one possible place to start is at WP:Education noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify or Move to talk page of big five article: Content on evolutionary psychology of Personality is quite general, not very well sourced, and already covered in other articles (WP:cfork). The exception is the big five section which has some potential (even if only based in a single source), and could maybe be integrated in that article as a summary and/or in the specific articles of each of the factors.--Garrondo (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2013 (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. While not strong guideline-based-arguments for keep due to the ambiguity of diplomats, there is certainly no strong consensus for delete. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 09:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khalnazar Agakhanov[edit]

Khalnazar Agakhanov (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 by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

Similar to 2 Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs articles sent to Afd yesterday, there are about 80 minimal stubs in Category:Asian diplomat stubs that may be non-notable. AFAIK Agakhanov, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

This Afd will be opposed by editors who believe that diplomats and other unelected officials have automatic notability, unlike writers, artists, scientists, politicians, sportsmen etc. What do afd participants think about this? Kleinzach 03:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also believe that ambassadors have a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This source indicates his being a minister for three different portfolios: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http://www.kommersant.ru/factbook/27736 --Mareklug talk 14:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with (talk). Seems to be fairly notable and satisfies WP:BIO. Article could do with some extra input. scope_creep (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia should have articles on all permanent ambassadors for the same reason it should have articles on all national legislators, judges on national courts, etc. You can call that "inherent notability" if you like, or a presumption that GNG will always be satisfied for such individuals; I really don't care because satisfying notability guidelines (which are a good but not perfect proxy for determining what is or isn't important enough to include) should not be a concern with obviously important subjects such as this, so long as we follow the policies of V, OR, NPOV (which actually are important all the time). Or you can call it an WP:IAR invocation, because deleting articles on permanent ambassadors does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. postdlf (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the condition that work is done to bring in more sources, resorting to a Wikipedia:Translation if necessary. If not, then I can see this going for a second nomination due to a single source. I checked WP:POLITICIAN and it mentions politicians and judges, but diplomats count as politicians? This is what isn't clear to me personally, though the apparent clarity with other editors is enough to vote for keep for now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article says that a politician "is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making." I think that ambassadors fit this definition, and therefore ought to be covered as politicians who have "held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". However I recognize that this interpretation may be controversial. Pburka (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2013 (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. Article already speedy deleted as G4 hoax. Closing discussion as moot. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Cowards[edit]

Righteous Cowards (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 cannot find significant discussion of this film in reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. ... discospinster talk 01:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (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:G11) by user:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klay Buckingham[edit]

Klay Buckingham (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 cannot find significant discussion of this individual in reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Google search brings up only social media and directories. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not see the problem with this. Social Media is a very important thing in the 21st century. It's how he makes a lot of his money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckster69 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 15 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The thing is, there are multiple, multiple issues with this article. First off is that the article is written to promote Buckingham and is full of unsourced information. Even if you are Buckingham himself (which I'm inclined to believe), we need coverage in sources that are independent of yourself. By this I mean sources in things such as news reports and the like. (WP:RS) Social media sites are not usable as reliable sources, especially those that are edited by a primary source. At the most they can be used as a WP:PRIMARY or WP:TRIVIAL source, but that's pushing it and they will never show notability. You do seem to exist, but existing is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS) As it stands, this could probably be speedied as promotion/spam. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but it really does come across as you coming on here to promote yourself, which is never well received. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if you are Buckingham it is better to state as much up front. It's not against the rules to edit your own information (as long as it passes notability guidelines) but it is heavily, heavily frowned upon when people do not divulge that they have a conflict of interest. The reason I suspect you are Buckingham is because not only are the names very similar, but given that Buckingham appears to be a relative unknown in the acting world (very little chatter about him that wasn't started by himself), it's unlikely that you're someone separate that just happened to use a similar name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as a duplicate--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in usmc training[edit]

Differences in usmc training (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 school essay with no significant coverage. TBrandley 00:36, 15 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

America's Got Talent (season 8)[edit]

America's Got Talent (season 8) (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 cited verification (future event). Musdan77 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the show's general article, until such time as the first episode actually airs. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. A little too early. I created the page as a redirect months ago, to the season's section on the main page for the show. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, agree with TexasAndroid. A bit too early to have his own page. — Joaquin008 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pointless to redirect just to recreate it next month. Gage (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show premiers in June 2013. The show has a huge number of sources that verify it's airing. WP:FUTURE is not for events that are verified by reliable sources. The argument to redirect regarding WP:TOOSOON seems largely flawed because much of the lead up is verified and has received widespread coverage. Mkdwtalk 00:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have the judging panel and audition cities, thus hitting the minimum involved with a season article like this. Keep at this point as the actual premiere is a month away. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will (verifiably) happen soon, coverage is already extensive. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep via Mkdwtalk. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 20:53, 18 April 2013 (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 Son of Angels. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Fighter[edit]

Spirit Fighter (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)

As with Fire Prophet; no sources at all this time, author Jerel Law doesn't have a bio, no reviews AFAICT. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 00:21, 15 April 2013 (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 UCSC Student Associations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JECatt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
JECatt (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:ORG. There is no indication of importance or notability on the article. The last AFD was a procedural close. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:06, 15 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Angels[edit]

Son of Angels (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)

As per the articles on the books, Spirit Fighter and Fire Prophet. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK, author doesn't have an article. I can't find any reliable reviews Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I won't argue too hard if this is deleted, but I did manage to find a small smattering of coverage that could justify an article on the series as a whole. There are three reviews for the books via Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. While these are trade reviews, there has been no consensus as of yet when it comes to whether or not they should be discounted for that. Until then, they technically "count" as far as I know, although I'll admit that I'm sort of undecided as far as that goes. I did find two newspaper articles, one of which I couldn't really pull up but did show up in a few of my news searches. Maybe someone with a HighBeam account can find the full length article and quote it somewhere? I'll see what else I can find, but Christian fiction books almost never get as much coverage as their mainstream counterparts unless they're a very high profile author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver McGee[edit]

Oliver McGee (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 subject seems not to be the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources (WP:BASIC). He's also very, very far from meeting WP:ACADEMIC. The best coverage I found was an interview of McGee about McGee on a website for "untold personal stories of both well-known and unsung" persons, which enters the realm of WP:BLPSPS (self-serving claims by the interviewee), and human interest coverage. Generally, the more reliable coverage mentions McGee in passing, and the actual topic of coverage is often what McGee is talking about, as opposed to McGee himself. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His profile is a bit eclectic, but he does have a decent academic career, serving as chairman of Civil Engineering at Ohio State, before he transitioned into administrative/political activities. To quote from the awards section of his own bio at his webpage: "the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) & the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's 1995 State of Georgia Professor of the Year, U.S. Black Engineer Magazine's 1996 Black Engineer of the Year Award, Education College-Level, and Science Spectrum Magazine’s “Fifty (50) Most Important Blacks in Research Science” for 2004. In 2005, McGee was named to Science Spectrum Magazine’s “Top Minorities in American Research Science” List....he is a former member of the National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Engineering (1998-2001)." We may safely assume that Science Spectrum Magazine, at least, did some study and coverage of his work, providing some coverage under WP:BIO, and then the NSF advisory committees are quite influential, giving grounds on WP:PROF C7, even quite independent of the fact that Fox News airs interviews with him. In the more colloquial sense for notability of, "is this a noteworthy individual?" I think the answer is an unambiguous yes. RayTalk 01:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, as well as some significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources, such as in this magazine. Therefore, the subject passes WP:GNG. The article should be checked for neutrality so it is not promotional, but AfD is not a replacement for article improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the material cited above is sufficient to show notability by the GNG. Whether he is a notable academic is not discussed in the article, as far as I can tell he is not--there are almost no citations to his engineering publication.Neither he isnotable under WP:PROF as an academic administrator. But the GNG option in WP:PROF was designed for individuals with careers like his. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 22 April 2013 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis Cup (boxing) 2004[edit]

Acropolis Cup (boxing) 2004 (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 indication of notability and lacks significant coverage in independent sources. There weren't even enough competitors to award all the medals.Mdtemp (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (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/2013_April_15&oldid=1142633252"