Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 August	16 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Mustangs[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:ORG#Primary_criteria Surfer43 00:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This team doesn't seem to have multiple third-party sources covering it, so it doesn't pass the notability guideline. This whole football league looks really weird, too. It has three teams called the Mustangs. T C N7JM 08:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete normally semi-pro teams are not considered notable and I see no reason to make an exception here. It appears there was another "Madison Mustangs" team back in the 1960's, but this team was founded in 1998. Thus, I'm not seeing coverage of this particular Madison Mustangs team to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:10, 16 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Mohammadi[edit]

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

There's no indication of notability or significant independent coverage. A junior wrestling championship certainly doesn't show notability (see WP:MANOTE). Jakejr (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Kabirat (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning a youth gold medal does not meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 20 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Leone (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He fails WP:MANOTE with no top tier fights and I found nothing to show he meets WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No top-tier fights and little sourcing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights or significant coverage. Fighting for the title of a second-tier organization does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 20 August 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 merge to Institution of Engineers (India). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AMIE[edit]

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

Page notability unclear, layout needs significant work. Orphaned, and written in some places with POV/Advert. TRL (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert back to this version from 21 July before it was completely rewritten by various ip's. The current version is promotional and possibly copyvio or at least close paraphrasing. The older version may need some work as well but that's not a reason to delete and I have found a number of independent refs that support notability (I want add them just yet in case it is reverted). Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the article on the organization. The existing content is totally promotional, and without it there isn;t enough left for an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 8 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 8 August 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, Dea db eef 22:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Institution of Engineers (India) which says all that anyone needs to know about this membership qualification; the rest is a how-to guide on the exams - appropriate and even essential on the organisation's website, inappropriate here. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Institution of Engineers (India), echoing the above user's suggestion, it can have a brief section there rather than one whole article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Institution of Engineers (India) - there is enough sourced content to add a useful section to the target so a straight redirect would not be a good idea. The sources verify the qualification but there is a lack of coverage to meet WP:GNG or to justify a stand-alone page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:58, 16 August 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 merge to Surfers Paradise, Queensland. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast Nightlife Precinct[edit]

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

Most of the article is not about a precinct. The precinct is only mentioned twice as a vague area which is notorious. Otherwise, it is just a collection of Gold Coast venues and events. Neither reference mentions the precinct at all. Shiftchange (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is more a list of external links to private venues masquerading as an article about the precinct. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:Rome wasn't built---. A decent start, useful, and the template suggests many more of the articles within it should also be up for deletion. Make it more encyclopedic if need be, but I think the article does good. MMetro (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 3 August 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) 19:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added in two new external links that reference the Gold Coast/Surfers Paradise Nightlife specifically. The article obviously needs some work done but to delete the article would be foolish in my opinion. This is one of the most notorious nightlife areas in Australia after all. Given Wikipedia is intended to provide information about the world, I can't see why this should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.160.205 (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Although the area exists, it's difficult to find any good refs for it. It's hard to imagine what would be in this article that couldn't be covered by Surfers Paradise, Queensland. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surfers Paradise, Queensland, merging any salvagable content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 15 August 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, Dea db eef 22:42, 15 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Aviation[edit]

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

Non-notable company, does not even make WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP. The article's references are all either the company's webpages, directory listings plus one article about a pilot that mentions the company briefly in passing. A search for references turned up only blogs and directory listings, nothing to make WP:N. The type of training offered by this school: private, commercial, instrument, multi, aerobatics and so on is offered by thousands of other very similar flying schools around the world. The article is quite promotional in tone and seems to run afoul of WP:SPAM as well. Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject California, WikiProject Companies and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep with revisions — after some additions of news-citations, I think the article is a candidate for keeping, but there is some significant trimming of detail which should be done; for instance, the details of classes of aircraft ... this is both fully sourced from subject-published sources and not relevant in the degree of detail provided; this is not a directory as to what businesses have what types of craft for rent or training. I have not undertaken the _removal_ of any information, but I have added support for some pieces and added some additional information from non-selfpublished sources (these do not show up in standard searches -- you need to go to local newspaper archives to find them). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is good that you found those archived articles and added them, but none of them are articles about the company itself, they are all about other subjects and just coincidentally mention the company in passing, so it still doesn't make WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete had a go at a tidy up to remove some of the un-encyclopedic content but could not really see anything that makes Sunrise any more notable than thousands of other flying schools. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Revisions This is opening a can of worms. There are many aviation articles that can be deleted based on ones interpretations. I would hate to lose the ability to link some near obsolete aircraft to some small enterprise that still flies one of the last airworthy models. The article and many like it offer a brief history that is useful when doing research. It is short sighted to go around deleting articles because a small group (see Group think) determined in their opinion it had little or no value. I see to much rigidness in Wikipedia and not enough thinking outside the box. Ask this question: Does it do any harm? If not, do not operate on the patient. We all have opinions of what is worthy and burning articles is not the best answer. Pheasantpete (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You probably should review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and in particular WP:NOHARM. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to make notability or meet other grounds for inclusion. G11 in my mind, as it reads no differently the an advertisement for any of numerous flight schools/FBOs. Caffeyw (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Revisions This really is opening a can of worms. There are many articles across Wikipedia that can be deleted based on the nominators interpretations. It would be silly to lose the ability to create articles on any future FBO's based upon the overwhelming desire for Mr. Hunt to delete this story. As was said before "The article and many like it offer a brief history that is useful when doing research" and now with the links that have been ref'ed since this nomination it should be taken into consideration that this is one of the FEW remaining Aerobatic schools of this caliber in the world. I have contributed THOUSANDS of High Quality photos to Wikipedia over the years and it would be really sad burning them with the witch-hunt logic that has been put into this removal request.(talk)--WPPilot 04:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a nomination for loads of articles just one flying school in California, deleting this article will not stop anybody creating one on another flying school if it is notable. So the question is are Sunrise notable, and it appears this hinges on the aerobatic training, so far I cant see any evidence that it is, as for being one of the few in the world http://www.iacusn.org/schools/ lists another 18 just in California. So all we are looking for is a reliable reference that Sunrise is different. Not sure what images has to do with it we dont deal with images at Articles for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is hardly opening a "can of worms". Wikipedia policy requires that we only have articles on subjects that are notable in that they have sufficient third party references. This one clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. As far as articles being "deleted based on the nominators interpretations", that is precisely why we have AfD, so that wide community input is sought and decisions made on consensus, not on any one editor's "interpretations" of anything. I have reviewed a number other flight school articles and so far the ones I have found do have sufficient third party references and so there is no intention to nominate them. This is a single discussion on one single article. Also your statements that I have an "overwhelming desire...to delete this story" is not accurate. Where is your evidence that this is some sort of vendetta against this article? The reason we start AfDs is to have a rational discussion about the article involving as many interested editors as possible to get as wide a range of opinions as possible. The state of the final debate will not be assessed by me, and, if the article is found to not meet the standards to keep it, then it will be deleted by the closing admin, not by me. Furthermore your characterization of this debate as a "witch-hunt" is offensive and treads very close to the line of a personal attack, so I would suggest you temper your words above to discuss the actual topic at hand and not attack the motives of other editors for questioning the article you started. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because WP:CORP is not met. As Ahunt has already pointed out, this flying school has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable third-party media.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the keep !votes here, I'm concerned that there is sockpuppetry going on here, as they both read very much as if they were written by the same editor - using the exact same phrasing and tone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is really silly, I used some of the other users comments and now I am a sockpuppet. I have no idea who Pheasantpete is, none of our edits are even in the same areas, yet The Bushranger seems to think otherwise. Just Silly and not any way do I have anything to do with that user and I have no idea who that person is. --WPPilot 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I see no significant coverage about this company. Sourcing are to article which mention them, but that does not constitute significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, self promotional, POV, you name it!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:58, 21 August 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. Article has been improved a lot after the deletion nomination (specially the history section). More importantly, there is not any "delete" vote, and consensus seems to be in favour of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Tito☸Dutta 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pogonophobia[edit]

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

Incoherent article describing a few incidents where people talked of pogonophobia, instead of defining it with proper sources. As it stands, it's mostly a dictionary definition, which would fit better on Wiktionary. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, could be improved then, instead of deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why only perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) My thoughts exactly, there's enough material out there for a proper article, with information from some more sources yet be incorporated. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed (by Google) to read the book, but common-phobias.com doesn't seem like a WP:RS to me. The other website, maybe. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let you, even if Google won't. But what's it doing at "common-phobias.com"? My giddy aunt, it's got to be rarer than hen's teeth, surely? Well, until Paxman+BBC+Twitter came along of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes, that was an error, I had lots of windows open at once and picked the wrong link. I meant this one for some background. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC) But that is a rather good point you raise there, Martin![reply]

Keep Unless a new article is deemed a suitable candidate for speedy deletion, is it not best practice to give it a bit of time to be developed first, rather than jumping on it straight after its birth? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cloudy. Bet you're glad you returned! As they famously say down our way: "You can't comb a hairy ball flat without creating a cowlick" -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unlike some previous phobia AfDs I've seen, this one actually has sources (however little) and people have apparently actually talked about it before. Let's not shave it off before it can grow to something better! Ansh6 6 6 00:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be rather rash. Of course, one should never Fear the Beard! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, what have I done..... Ansh6 6 6 01:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC) (p.s. eew, not the Giants...)[reply]

Apologies, I'd never heard of this famous rounders player. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete? I see nothing even approaching a solid reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So it's crap. Have you seen Special:Random? It has potential. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeo. A fascinating topic that should not be discriminated against because of its rarity. Surely it deserves more than a single short dictionary definition? There may be cross-cultral/ religious apects to this phobia, or at least to its cultural expression, which have yet to be considered? It should also be made clear that there are two uses of the word - in popular usage the word part "-phobia" is typically used to mean discrimitaion, e.g. homephobia, xenophobia, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. a very big thank you to Anthonyhcole - every one of my hits so far has produced something of real interest. Might be at risk of abandoning my watchlist at this rate (big cheer goes up....).[reply]
- Mmm. I just did the same and the first 20 non-disambiguation pages were actually pretty good. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination doesn't explain why this should be a red link. I reckon that the subject here is more beardism than a true phobia but there seems to be plenty to say about it. Warden (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I suggested, I think it covers both at the moment. But not equally. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 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 London Rollergirls. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle West[edit]

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

This article lacks reliable independent sources and the subject doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As co-founder (one of two) of the UK's first all-female roller derby league is notable. But I can't find reliable sources, that are not self published. The book is published by a company with a total of two books in its backlist and can't find any professional reviews. No reliable sourcing available per WP:V. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Rollergirls - One top-tier fight and not enough reliable sources to pass WP:NMMA or coverage of her writing to pass WP:GNG. But as the founder of a notable roller derby league, a redirect is preferable to a delete. Luchuslu (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any reliable sources that say she founded the roller league. The league's WP article doesn't mention her, nor does the league website, nor do any of the sources on the league's article. If you can find sources, besides her WP article, that show she founded the league I'll agree with a redirect. Jakejr (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's mentioned as a co-founder in a 2006 story as well as her Amazon.com profile and her bio for her gym. Luchuslu (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sources are primary and I'm not sure how reliable a source lubbockonline.com is--but I've added it to the London Rollergirls article. Papaursa (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to London Rollergirls Subject is certainly not notable as an MMA fighter, but I'm going to assume the first source mentioned by Luchuslu above is reliable. Papaursa (talk) 23:55, 19 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuaed Abdo Ahmed[edit]

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

Is this incident of senseless violence a tragedy? Yes. However, does it meet our notability requirements for including events? For me, that's a little ehh (at this time)... Signalizing (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is covered in national and international media. Everybody is noting it. Part of a pattern of violence by young Arab Americans for no apparent motive. Why is it that every time somebody commits a deadly act of terrorism that hits national and international headlines, somebody else has to try to delete the article as not notable? Redhanker (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable" Epoch times(china) , Daily Mail UK Redhanker (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that it's "part of a pattern of violence by young Arab Americans for no apparent motive" is entirely presumptuous. I haven't even been able to find an Op-Ed after half an hour of searching to suggest as much (the only source I found from today that's even remotely close was an update on a hostage's condition from Reuters). At this point, there's no larger motive besides a mentally unstable man who believed he had a chip in his brain holding and killing hostages inside a bank. At this point, I think this kind of story is more appropriate for Wikinews than it would be for Wikipedia. Signalizing (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also encourage you to take a look at WP:ONEEVENT to see why some event articles get deleted as non-notable. Signalizing (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote most of this article and filed it in a separate section of St. Joseph, Louisiana. Someone else made it into a separate article and left a stub of the story under St. Joseph. I then added some links to Briarfield Academy, East Carroll Parish, and Tensas Parish. If it is deleted, I think the article should be returned to the section under St. Joseph. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't Wikinews; see WP:BLP1E. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment ...not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981. This was a significant event, it was not covered only by the local TV news or paper on some crime blotter like the theft of a lawn mower or car. Ahmed killed two people and himself was shot by SWAT police, it made international headlines, he was Arab, and he posted cartoons and artwork about hostages and violence against "tyranny" so it appears he did have a political motive, and he did indicate support for Islam. There is a well established pattern of censorship by deletion of individuals who commit crimes similar to terrorist acts who have ties to ethnic or religious groups with common motives to commit terrorism .Redhanker (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is certainly more to this than an unstable mental case, or a bank robbery which appear to have been parts to staging a cover story for terrorism. It was clearly not a bank robbery as he did not ask for money and had books on hostage taking. The Reuter story makes explicit links to terrorist activity in Yemen, even if links to Al Qaeda have not yet been proven: update makes links to middle east obvious ... notes about a recent trip to Dubai. Ahmed was the California-born son of Yemeni parents. Police said there was no indication of any link to recent threats of attacks on the United States originating from Yemen. Earlier this month, the United States temporarily closed several of its embassies and consulates, including in Yemen, over security concerns. "We don't have any reason to believe there was any connection," Paxton said., This looks a lot like the 2013 Santa Monica shooting which also involved an American born Arab with parents from another nation with terrorist activity, Lebanon, and the Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis which was another young man with immigrant parents who made extremist political demands. Neither of these incidents was deemed "not notable" just because it wasn't the shooting of a president. Redhanker (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's absolutely nothing here that would suggest this event will get continuing coverage. There's not even a hint that there will be any lasting impacts from this. IMO, this definitely doesn't pass WP:EVENT. Transcendence (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS : No lasting significance. LGA _talk^edits 06:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not significant, not the news, and is not encyclopedic. Crtew (talk) 00:57, 19 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion images[edit]

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

Vague personal essay Bhny (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTESSAY quite thoroughly. Ansh6 6 6 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mediocre essay. It is always a bad sign when a phrase like "the following article addresses the issues" appears early on. This looks like a classroom assignment, and if so, I hope that the instructor was not generous in assigning grades. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty much the epitome of a personal essay and WP:OR. The article looks to be pretty much a light re-telling of fashion design and history of fashion design for the most part. However since it's not a new article, we can't speedy it under A10. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The biggest problem for me is the title - fashion images normally means pictorial illustration and that is a big and important topic in itself, covered very poorly at Fashion illustration and Fashion photography. Pictorial illustration was an important way in which clothing fashions were disseminated in 18th century England, for example. It is not for this process to mark the present essay, fortunately for the original creator, but I wonder if they even read it through. Take this sentence - Fashion in early France was a statement of art. Would that be in Gaul, or Francia, or some other time? Presumably one or more words is missing. And only art? If this is an attempted reference to the world of haute couture then it contradicts the introduction. And so forth. Nothing to merge. --AJHingston (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete' I saw this last night, thought I'd sit on it a few hours, and came back and saw that everyone else had agreed with all my initial thoughts. Having had another look, I concur with all the points above. It does look like a classroom assignment, as Cullen328 suggested - and indeed, I had a check to see whether the creator had been affiliated with such a project. They have made no edits beyond this subject, which strongly supports the conclusion it was an assignment. So yes, unashamedly jumping on the delete bandwagon. Mabalu (talk) 09:36, 16 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian L. Bates[edit]

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

seems to be a WP:BLP1E created by the subject himself. Only claim to fame is that he is the first gay republican in Georgia. He isn't even the first gay person elected there, which might have generated enough third party mentions to meet WP:BIO or some kind of presumptive notability. As it is, we're left with the fact that he's a local councillor for a town of 8,000 people, which fails WP:POLITICIAN. Doesn't appear to have any kind of significant independent reliable coverage. News stories in The Advocate, a LGBT interest magazine, queerty.com, a LGBT website, which does not seem to be a reliable source, and peachpundit, a blog do not seem to be enough to establish this person's notability. Valenciano (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. My first inclination is to cast a "Delete" !vote, since a city council member in a city of 8,000 doesn't seem to be a very notable figure. A Google search didn't turn up anything in the wider national press: the Advocate and Queerty pieces seem to be about the best claims that the subject has to notability. However, the fact that they're directed primarily at a LGBT readership doesn't mean that they can't be taken as evidence of notability. If, for instance, we were discussing the notability of a skateboarder, we wouldn't insist on coverage in the New York Times; coverage in publications like Thrasher would probably be considered sufficient. The WP articles on The Advocate and Queerty suggest that they've got a decent readership: these aren't just some random person's blog. I wouldn't ferociously defend this article, but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Ammodramus (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Queerty, for example, states that it is "free of an agenda... except that one" so to me, a gay person being mentioned there isn't anything noteworthy. They've already said that they'll push an agenda. If Thrasher, for example, openly stated the same I'd be a bit more unsure of it as a reliable source for establishing notability for skateboarders' bios. Not that it's relevant to this AFD but I'd fully support LGBT rights, however if an LGBT person has only been covered in LGBT magazines, then that's short of the overall coverage I'd expect to see to be sure that WP:BIO is met. Furthermore, both those sources still only cover him in relation to a single event, so WP:BLP1E applies. Valenciano (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:BLP1E requires the subject to meet each of three conditions, the second of which is "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". The link leads to an essay whose lead paragraph includes the statement: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." In view of the fact that Bates holds a public office, and is running for re-election to it, I don't believe that he could be considered a low-profile individual; indeed, the username of the article's creator suggests that it might've been Bates himself, in which case the very act of creating the article would consitutute "actively seek[ing] out media attention". Since the second prong of BLP1E doesn't appear to be met, that particular policy doesn't seem to apply in this case. Ammodramus (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link to is an essay and I don't see that he meets any of the criteria there for being "high profile." Countless deletion discussions in the past and the guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN, which trump essays, have established that running for public office or being an elected local councillor is not enough to make someone high profile. See for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruth_O'Keeffe or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earl_Williamson. Especially in cases like this where they remain a basic local councillor in a council covering a very small area. If it were otherwise we would have hundreds of thousands of articles about such people. My interpretation of that essay would be that the person sought and obtained significant coverage as a result of self-publicising. That hasn't happened here. The subject, or a supporter, creating a Wikipedia article about themselves does not equal media attention. Indeed giving someone who creates a puff piece about themselves on Wikipedia exemption from WP:BLP1E as a result strikes me as a very dangerous precedent to set. So again we're left with the questions: Does this person meet WP:POLITICIAN? No. Have they achieved any kind of significant coverage in reliable third party sources? No. Valenciano (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria, the first two paragraphs of which state that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included... A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."

The essay linked in WP:BLP1E seems to be the only place where "low-profile individual" is defined. There are four occurrences of it at the BLP1E page: two link to the essay, and the other two assume that we know what it means. Absent an official Wikipolicy definition of the phrase, the essay seems to be the best definition we've got. It's also consistent with BLP1E's placement in WP:BLP as a subsection of the section "Presumption in favor of privacy". As I read it, the policy is there to keep minimally notable people from being made the unwilling subjects of WP articles, and doesn't apply to subjects who're willing or eager to endure the limelight.

This definition of "low-profile individual" does not render us impotent to delete articles about self-puffers. It only means that we can't cite BLP1E in doing so. I note that BLP1E is mentioned in neither of the local-councillor deletion discussions linked above: the articles were deleted because the subjects failed to meet WP:GNG.

I disagree, albeit weakly, that Bates hasn't received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't see how either Queerty or the Advocate fails reliability or independence. Note that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources, a subsection of WP:RS, states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". The fact that these sources are directed chiefly at the LGBT community, and that Queerty admits (albet, in my reading, somewhat tongue-in-cheek) to promoting the "gay agenda", doesn't keep them from being reliable. My only question on notability, and the reason why my "Keep" !vote was modified by "weak", is whether the coverage is extensive enough. However, there was definitely more than a passing mention: given the length of the Advocate piece, in particular, I'm inclined to give this article the benefit of the doubt. Ammodramus (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in the past there was often a consensus that "first LGBT person to hold a particular office" was a sufficient claim of notability in its own right; however, more recently that consensus seems to have weakened — see, frex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ireton. (Full disclosure, I cast a keep vote there but the keeps didn't carry the day, so I've had to adjust my understanding of where the consensus on this kind of thing actually stands.) In truth, as the number of openly LGBT people getting elected to office increases, so too does the number of LGBT people getting elected to offices so minor that being their first LGBT holder isn't really a compelling notability claim because the office itself just isn't notable enough for us to care about its history at all. List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United States#Local, for instance, is starting to get just silly with redlinks for first-LGBT holders of council seats in their own individual small towns. Yes, some of them indeed still qualify for one reason or another — the ones in Ann Arbor, for instance, were also the first three LGBT politicians ever to hold any office whatsoever anywhere in the entire country — but there are also numerous people being listed there now who hold offices far too small and insignificant for being their first LGBT holder to count as a good reason why they should actually get an article.

The criterion absolutely made sense a few years ago, when even some of the bigger cities were still only just getting their first openly gay councillors. In cities that weren't quite large enough to land in the NYC/Chicago/El Lay "city councillors are always notable" class, but were large enough that a city councillor might still potentially be notable enough, it made sense as a criterion that could put an edge case like Joel Burns, Chris Seelbach, Bruce Kraus or Gary Schiff over the bar. But now that small towns whose municipal councillors would have no chance of ever being considered notable otherwise are electing LGBT people too, it's rapidly losing its effectiveness as a convincing notability claim.

The Advocate and Queerty aren't unreliable sources in principle — but as LGBT-oriented sources, they're obviously still going to cover any LGBT person who gets elected to office regardless of how notable the office is or isn't for our purposes. So they're valid sources for verification of facts, certainly, but they don't in and of themselves constitute proof that the office he's gotten elected to is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia at all. If Brian Bates could claim to be the first LGBT person ever elected anywhere in all of Georgia, he'd be a clearcut keep — but if all he can claim is to be the first LGBT person associated with the Republicans instead of the Democrats to get elected in the state, or the first LGBT person to be elected to the municipal council of a small town whose municipal councillors would have absolutely no chance of ever being considered notable otherwise, then that's a notability claim with too many amendments attached to it to be compelling anymore.

Delete. One or two sentences in the "History" section of Doraville, Georgia is all we really need here. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Bearcat's point regarding the particular office-- obviously, it'd be ludicrous to start articles on every "first openly gay person elected to the (city, state) council". However, I think that being the first openly gay Republican elected in the state of Georgia pushes Bates over the notability threshhold. Social conservatives are a powerful force in the Republican party in the Deep South; although I know little of Georgia politics, I suspect that previously elected openly-gay candidates have been Democrats running in Democrat-dominated districts.

Bearcat suggests that the Advocate will "cover any LGBT person who gets elected to office". The Project Q Atlanta piece cited in the article lists several LGBT candidates who won in that round of elections in Georgia, including Johnny Sinclair, who was elected to the city council in Marietta (population 56,000, so seven times the size of Doraville). Searching the Advocate's website for (sinclair marietta) produces zero results. Searching for (marietta) yields 17 hits, none of which is about Sinclair's election. This suggests that the Advocate won't necessarily run an article on any gay person who wins any office, however minor; so a ten-paragraph article on Bates confers a certain amount of notability. Ammodramus (talk) 01:15, 14 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is a city council member in a very small polity. There is nothing notable about him other than claims about being the first something, and we do not create articles on minor people just because they have some trivial first claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 20 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Marin[edit]

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

There is not enough biographical info mentioned in reliable sources to have its own article. Yes, he has had major roles in 5 notable movies, but that would not be a good excuse for a person without any in-depth significant commentary about the child actor that it would be enough to merit its own page. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage about this actor; only articles that mention his name to credit a role. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 6 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 8 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Busker[edit]

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

I came across this page after looking at edits by an involved user, but quickly saw that there was a big issue with notability and neutrality. I set to cleaning the article and find sources, as the original state of the article asserted that he was a big force within his niche. (You can see the original version here.) A previous AfD was closed back in 2004 as a keep and cleanup, but I don't see anything to show that this guy passes the current notability standards. All I can really find are notifications of events such as this one which seem to be based upon press releases. I understand that he's a niche performer, but I just can't find anything to show that he's ultimately notable enough for his own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. There's quite a bit online, but it tends to be minor listings guides, or publicity pages for events of purely local interest. I'm sure he's lots of fun with a few pints of real ale or flagons of scrumpy, but he doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 8 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have added a couple of (brief) newspaper pieces to the article as references, but they are essentially local coverage.Fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the non-highbeam versions ([1], [2]) if anyone needs to look at them to show how brief they are. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 16 August 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 Nomination Withdrawn. The nomination has been withdrawn as the page was redirected. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kotava[edit]

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

Following the recent deletion discussion about another artificial language, I would like to ask the community for its opinion on this one as well. In short, much of the article is original research and practically all that remains is based on primary sources only. Besides, the article fails to give any conclusive evidence regarding the notability of its subject. One reliable third-party source is mentioned, but neither does the article quote it, nor is it made clear to what extent Kotava is discussed in it. Other sources appear to be non-existent. These and other issues have been brought up on the talk page a while ago, but haven't been addressed. The article has been deleted twice now, in 2005 and 2008, and it just seems to be too early for recreation. Four things hint at notability: an ISO 639-3 code; a book in which Kotava is used as a fictional language; the Moskovsky/Libert publication; and a relatively large corpus of translated literature – perhaps just enough to tipple the balance, perhaps not. But in its current state there are too many issues with this article (WP:N, WP:VER, WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ONEDAY, WP:TOOSOON). Unless these issues can be solved, deletion seems the only way out. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was undeleted after some discussion despite these same arguments. Nothing has changed. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean this discussion, right? It was my impression that this undeletion was done only because Kotava has an ISO code, and only with the purpose of making the page history visible (initially via a redirect, like Romanova language). The question, however, is whether an ISO code alone is enough to warrant an article, especially given a notorious lack of non-primary sources. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I forgot about that. The answer then, I think, would be to revert it to a redirect, not delete it. If restoring it becomes a problem, we can always protect it as a rd. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would, of course, be a perfectly acceptable solution. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we just do that, then? I doubt we're going to get much interest in this AfD, if past discussions are any guide. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It would surely be the quietest and cleanest solution. In that case I will of course withdraw this nomination. If the article gets recreated in the future, I'll simply relist this AfD, but let's hope that won't be necessary. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page has been reverted to a redirect, I hereby withdraw the nomination. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nomination has been withdrawn and the AfD was incorrectly closed. I have reverted those edits and am closing the AfD now. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:08, 17 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martviri Sabatsmindeli[edit]

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

I cannot find any verifiable sources that prove this person's notability. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sources are in Georgian. And just because they are Georgian sources it does not mean it should be deleted. There are many articles just like that with Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Arabic sources so should we remove and delete all those articles which has one? georgianJORJADZE 21:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My gut feel is that that the subject is notable, but the titles of sources should be translated into English, or at the very least transliterated into Latin script. St Anselm (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my main concern as well. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming good faith on the (recently translated) references in the article. St Anselm (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no requirement that sources must be in English. I did run the sources through Google Translate and I learned two things: 1) Google Translate for Georgian needs some work. 2) What parts of it I could read gave me the distinct impression that this subject is notable. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 07:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that the sources are in Georgian is no reason for deletion. I cannot read them, but have no reason to suspect that they are not WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So can I remove the delete tag from the article? georgianJORJADZE 13:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you must wait until this discussion is closed, which will be seven days from the nomination. St Anselm (talk) 13:46, 21 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Molly Bish[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting significance claimed or demonstrated. LGA _talk^edits 20:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an event that was deemed notable when it occured and for several years after does not suddenly lose notability. WP even have guidelines about that. Also per GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A news event with national reach, as reflected in the article. The subject patently meets the provisions of the GNG. As far as whether this is an enduring story, I found four articles on Google News published within the last month. Ravenswing 02:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic meets our notability guidelines for criminal acts, as it involves a prolonged, three year disappearance that proved to be a murder, still unsolved. Significant coverage in reliable sources is plentiful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 16 August 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 prejudice towards recreation under the correct title. Will undelete upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haiwan (film)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this direct-to-video film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to locate coverage in reliable sources for this film; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gong show 19:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing WP:NF... and I looked. All I could find was a rather nice blog post/review from someone who actually saw the film and could speak somewhat knowledgeably about its history. Not enough... unless Tamil language sources come forward. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Suggestions After few discussions like this, few WikiProject India editors decided to monitor WP:INDIA AFDs regularly. Please see WP:INDAFD.: The article mentions it is a Telugu film. IndianFilmTrade website mentions it is a Hindi film. The same article makes it clear— the film was dubbed from Telugu to Hindi. That's how, we are using title of the dubbed version, not the original version. So, it is absolutely necessary to attempt to find the title of the original version. WT:INB might help. --Tito☸Dutta 06:50, 21 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suck UK[edit]

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

Notability: probably insufficiently notable for this wiki. COI: article consists solely of shameless promotional material added by an employee of the company (or by someone using her name), who is also the creator thereof. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 8 August 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) 18:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediator ram (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Clearly NN. It has worked with two notable TV shows, not created them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 17 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pradhanmantri[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "This cannot yet be notable. It exists, yes, but has no track record as a series. Later it may have an article, when it has established itself. Right now this is crystal ball gazing. The article is also promotional, not factual." Fiddle Faddle 11:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the Nomination for Deletion. This show has received a lot of views on its show page on Youtube. The 4 episodes uploaded on the page have more than 1 lac views. Though the series has started just a month back, it seems to be doing well and deserves a mention on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunjanv (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It´s really not notable.--Yopie (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough, references been added now.--Ekabhishek^talk 03:30, 11 August 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) 18:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems sufficiently covered in RS. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if reliable refs are added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediator ram (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Comment despite some refs being added, per WP:NOTNEWS I believe this is still too early to have an article about a yet to be aired TV show. Wait until it airs. It may get cancelled before airing,m or pulled after a couple of shows as being poor. Fiddle Faddle 07:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any discussion on whether a tv series is notable enough is fraught with dangers, we have the policy of wiki not being a tab on the other hand we want to be a repository of all notable entries, a tv series by itself cannot be notable, however if public interest increases then the program can be said to be notable. by looking into the refs it seems that the article has crossed the basic threshold of notability and hence i would advocate for keeping the article. LegalEagle (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Increasingly gaining popularity in social media and receiving good reviews and commentary from Indian historians. Abhiag (talk) 14:05, 18 August 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 per WP:SNOW. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socks in sandals[edit]

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

We regards this topic as highly biased. We tried to add our point of view but it was repeatedly deleted. So we think that this topic violates some basic principles of Wikipedia. ' In fact, this topic is wrongly formulated. Wearing socks in sandals is quite normal thing. So there is no reason there is a special topic about it. On the other hand "anti-sock-in-sandals" meme si something that requires an attention. And it is not a matter of fashion. It is a matter of irrational intolerance. So it is potentionally dangerous thing.Varenucha (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was incorrectly nominated. I have re-nominated it correctly and transcluded it to the log. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a classic example of WP:POINTy behaviour: Nominator (as IP 88.146.137.45) twice tried to add info which was removed because it was sourced to Facebook (not reliable). They (referring to themselves as a group, for whatever reason) subsequently blanked the page, which was again reverted. They then created an account to bring it to AfD. I don't want to comment on the merits of this nomination (though I will if asked to), but I do want to point out the recent history here. Ansh6 6 6 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment - 1) Facebook was not there as a source but as a reference (just for the purpose that someone who reads the article might find it interesting that such a group exists). So deletion of edited content was classic example of "deleting without thinking". Someone sees "Facebook" and deletes content without actually reading it. 2) Funny thing about that "Facebook is not a reliable source" - recently I refered somewhere to Wikipedia and it was denied because "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". In my opinion this attitude leads to nowhere. 3) Nothing of the above makes any change to a fact the the "Socks in sandals" article is highly biased and of low value. Because, for instance, it is not true that "Wearing socks in sandals is considered rather unaesthetic in the Czech Republic" - I am quite informed because I happen to live in Czech Republic. The truth is that most people wear socks in sandals here. And only some influential group tries to make an issue from it. And this is why I think the article should be edited or deleted. It is really about intolerance and not about fashion. It is similar phenomena to jokes about blondes - somebody is trying to create a public opinion that some people are worse than others. And that is why we formed a group (yes, we are indeed a group). Because we promote freedom and tolerance. So "socks in sandals" have some symbolic meaning to us.Varenucha (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that you weren't using Facebook as a source, I was just noting that that was the reason it was removed. The problem is, that makes your statement completely unsourced and a prime example of original research, which is probably even worse. Ansh6 6 6 20:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, sometimes I see in Wikipedia articles a comment "citation needed" or similar. Which, as I understand it, is used in similar cases.

Also: I edited the paragraph about Czech republic "sourced" by one article in Czech language. So according to your policy you should delete at least this whole paragraph. Do you understand Czech? Are you Czech? If not - what would you do if I use some other articles in Czech language that supports what I wrote?Varenucha (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, go find another article (reliably-sourced, though). That's much preferred to deleting a bunch of content that isn't related to what you have an issue with. Ansh6 6 6 20:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is related. I understand that one of the most important policy Wikipedia is based on is that it does not tolerate intolerance, discrimination etc. The article is wrote in such a way that it supports intolerance. It is not "politically correct", so to speak. What would think about article "Blondes" which would start like this: "In some parts of the world blondes are regarded as intelectually handicaped..." - would you say it is OK? So, when I am in do mood, I am going to edit the article again. I will rename it to "Anti Socks in Sandals meme" and remove the part "Wearing socks with sandals is a controversial fashion combination and cultural phenomenon that is discussed in various countries and cultures. It is sometimes considered a fashion faux pas." I will write someting like this instead: "Anti-sock-in-sandals meme" is a recent phenomena. Few years ago some people started to claim that wearing socks in sandals is a fashion faux pas..." And I hope it will stay that way.Varenucha (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It won't stay that way. I understand that you may feel strongly about this in the Czech Republic, but most editors on the English Wikipedia aren't Czech, and frankly as a Chinese-American I think this whole thing is quite silly. I appreciate you trying to improve this little project here, but understand that there are some things we can't change. It's out of your control, and frankly out of mine. Just try to stay out of trouble, okay? Thanks, Ansh6 6 6 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is silly. That is why I recommend that article for deletion. It is about silly subject and violates the principle of neutrality and objectivity. On the other hand intolerance IS NOT a silly subject. It is a serious problem. And intolerance regarding a silly subject might seem ridiculous but in some cases can lead to harassment, bullying etc. And than it is not ridiculous anymore. Therefore my effort here. Recommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Absolute_at_Large :)Varenucha (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources now provided in the article show that the combination of sandals and socks is a notable fashion topic. I have no opinion on anything else involved. Borock (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - I don't want to say delete since it's probably notable, but right now it's basically a trivia/gossip section and little else. Ansh6 6 6 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep and improve a lot - not really a problem with this article (except that I think it's silly), so needs more work so I don't think it's quite as silly. Ansh6 6 6 04:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced and I think it's an interesting concept. I don't see why this should be deleted. Reply to comment above: "right now it's basically a trivia/gossip section and little else" - that's to be expected from a new article. It should become better over time. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated. And if we don't have this article ... how else are vacationing North Americans supposed to do more than just roll their eyes at the easiest indicator that their fellow tourists are indeed European? (To be fair, I didn't see much of this in either China or Hong Kong during our recent visit there for Wikimania 2013; however as it was rather hot (especially in Shanghai) I doubt any sensible person would have worn socks with sandals ... I sure didn't. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability demonstrated. This is certainly a style I have seen plenty of references for and commentary on in multiple sources, so it is definitely notable. Although it is a quite rough new article, I've seen many worse. One observation - should it not be Socks and sandals? Mabalu (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Notability has been demonstrated and many reliable sources exist. Also, the overwhelming majority of responses are in favor of keeping, so it is extremely unlikely that this page will be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and seems to meet WP:NPOV—closely enough, anyway. —rybec 05:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator explains clearly that he wants this deleted because his personal POV was rejected. See WP:SK, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Warden (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider possible sanctions for the nominator. He has admitted to being the IP address which vandalized the article - and his page blanking is as clear an example of vandalism as one could find - and has proclaimed numerous times his/her lack of concern for and even opposition to site policies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, nominator is clearly Czech and from what I can tell doesn't understand more advanced English, let alone wiki-jargon. Any block would be for competence issues in this regard. Ansh6 6 6 21:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know, even with the competence issues, shouldn't the page blanking bring sanctions as well? (Not rhetorical - I really don't know for sure.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'd say it was in good faith (however that works...), and besides, sanctions are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. I'm not an admin and not too well-versed in adminy things, but I'd say a warning is enough. Ansh6 6 6 08:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the article's creator I've tried to compile this page in a neutral way, with the help of reliable sources. I think the topic is notable but still remains in the sphere of "gossip" or "trivia". Therefore it was quite difficult to build up a coherent and informative page. I admit that the article isn't perfect, I was forced to work with information available in reliable and independent sources, and the information itself is rather incoherent - please check the sources. It should be noted that an attempt of organized effort to delete this article has been proposed on a Czech Facebook group promoting wearing sock in sandals: "I urge to all who can speak at least a little English to participate in the discussion. We should show the world that we mean it seriously!" (loosely translated comment by a Facebook user - our User:Varenucha [3]) @User:Varenucha: This is not how Wikipedia works, this project doesn't serve as a defence or advocacy of someone's personal opinions. Wikipedia should describe the world around us in a neutral manner. I'm sorry if it doesn't comply with your agenda. On a side note, this becomes really funny ... you wouldn't believe that, but I'm quite a fan of wearing socks in sandals. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:53, 19 August 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 admin User:Bbb23 as CSD A7. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 21:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed Practical Nurses Day[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. I found very little third party coverage. Not notable unless you are a licensed practical nurse. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 as a planed event the article makes no claim to any significance other than it happens. LGA _talk^edits 20:48, 15 August 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 merge to Unitrans. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans RT742[edit]

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

Individual vehicles do not need own page surely? Possibly merge with Unitrans? Tom the Tomato ^Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 15:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ex-London double deckers are common throughout the world. I doubt that individual buses are notable unless they have been made notable (in a film, or something newsworthy). I would suggest that the fleet of Unitrans red buses be merged into a single article from the main Unitrans article. e.g. Unitrans London bus fleet. Martin451 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, Non notable stuff that would be better merged to Unitrans -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:42, 17 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Westcoast Stone[edit]

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

No reliable sources to indicate any notability for this hip-hop producer. Claims of title "Best Producer in the West" cannot be verified as there doesn't appear to be any indication who might have conveyed such a title or award. (The claim itself is referenced with a Facebook picture.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of course, I'm biased against people who skip the AFC process, but the references are no good at all. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, I couldn't find anything other than a few assorted blog entries. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 17:06, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dereste Dorcely[edit]

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

I tagged this as a BLPPROD because none of the references pass WP:RS, but the notice was removed uncommented upon. So it is now at AfD, no notability asserted, no reliable sources. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are not valid, even deleted my maintenance tags for no reason. Did not W:Assume good faith. SefBau : msg 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the same author with a different account created Jayme Karales, same blogs and references used. SefBau : msg 15:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References from websites added to Jayme Karales and Ken Dereste Dorcely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.190.68 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references pass Reliable Source (WP:RS). Need references in reliable sources eg. New York Times, Variety, Billboard, etc.. they have to be independent of the Dorcely, not websites operated by Dorcely ("official" websites are the exact opposite of a reliable source). The sources have to be about Dorcely, not by Dorcely (the iTunes source is by Dorcely). The sources can't be blogs, like nostroviawriting. The article has 0 valid references. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:29, 16 August 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 prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limebourne[edit]

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

No chance of expansion - defunct firm, bought out by major operator. Believed to be non-notable. Aycliffe ^Talk Previously Tommietomato. 14:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Travel London, unless "Limebourne" would be ambiguous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest a redirect to Abellio (London & Surrey) instead, as it bought out Travel London. Aycliffe ^Talk Previously Tommietomato. 14:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I doubt we need artiles on shortlived defunct bus companies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per Peterkingiron.--Charles (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per Peterkingiron →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:42, 17 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle trance[edit]

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

This article claims to document a feature of human evolution but it reads more like a fringe theory. The author of the page is a known sock puppet of Joseph Jordania, who invented the term and who has a history of trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion. The page has no reliable sources and the topic is both imaginary and not notable. Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since submitting this AfD I've discovered that the sock puppets referred to in the aforementioned complaint (which resulted in a temporary block at the time) have systematically gone through and cross-referenced Jordania's theories throughout the encyclopedia, mentioning him wherever possible. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this article with issues two years ago, wondering if the single-source problem was the result of lazy editing rather than the article's being a vehicle for self-promotion. The article hasn't been improved, and by now it is reasonable to assume that the reason why is that there isn't any significant treatment of this concept. I have been unable to find any. In the parlance, this article fails the notability guideline, the topic not having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe theory whose notability isn't established. A search of Google Scholar for the term returns no useful results: [4]. Moreover, analysis of the experiences of combatants generally notes that they actually have high levels of mental alertness (for fairly obvious reasons). Military personnel are indoctrinated to work together as a team through extensive training and the social organisation of their unit, and most recognise that they need to fight as a team to maximize their chances of success and survival (all professional military units are trained, equipped and organised to fight as a cohesive team). Suggestions that soldiers don't experience fear or pain and work as "one collective organism" due to their mental state in battle are laughably wrong. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the almost identical text on this fringe theory which was spammed across a range of articles. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 17 August 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Polishchuk[edit]

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

Article about Ukrainian businessman advertising his business. Article fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speed keep: the guy is a billionaire founder of a nation-wide retail chain. The article is poorly written by lame PRperson though. Ukrained2012 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speed keep: (per Ukrained2012;) the man is interesting enough to have his own Wikipedia article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:44, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ExR[edit]

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

One blog, one youtube link, no reliable sources or evidence of notability (and, alas, very hard to Google for same because there are about a million things called EXR) Pinkbeast (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try tapping in "Etta Bond Raf Riley Exr"? Chucks out 6,860 results in Google and 20,200 results in Bing. Regardless, keep per WP:BAND criterion #6a. Djunbalanced, what do you think?--Laun chba ller 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the artists have done enough as a duo to be included as a separate article. They've also played/been scheduled to play main stage at several major UK festivals including Global Gathering, Reading, Leeds and Wireless. At the moment there's a lot about ExR on Odd Child, but it would be better placed in either a separate article for the record label or an article for the duo. It's not logical to have it all down under Labrinth. --DJUnBalanced (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was mistaken. I've no complaint if proper sources can be found. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've incorporated the four Djunbalanced put here.--Laun chba ller 22:49, 15 August 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Groák[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 12:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No evidence of notability is provided. A Google search isn't turning anything up for me that focuses on him other than listings of his books and his obituary (which is what the one provided reference points to). —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the need for evidence of notability confusing and subjective. Though, I will say that the UK's Building Centre Trust commissioned him to write 'The Idea of Building' which is 'notable' to me. This is my first article and I am in no way offended. In fact, I found the same thing you did--there is little on the web about him and I have only read his book 'The Idea of Building' which is very informative and, in my opinion, prescient for when it was written because it discusses architecture, design, and engineering from his unique viewpoint. I hoped this page would survive to provide at least the basic information available on the internet and have little else to say. Delete it if you think the lack of evidence of notability should mean taking a man's name off Wikipedia.If you have any doubts about the validity of the information I have provided I would greatly appreciate some pointers on how to improve it.—Dan Swartz (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased you aren't offended, because I meant no offense! I admit I was on the fence about it, and was entirely open to feedback either way. I'm content to see the findings of Vejvančický, below, which I'd missed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Architects' Journal obituary (cited in the article) is substantial and suggests he was a notable researcher (btw, the AJ source lists more articles about him in the section "Related Articles"). He is also frequently quoted in architectural books and journals, see [5], [6]. It looks that his book 'The Idea of Building' has been reviewed by the Architecture Today.[7] --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a paywall on the Architects' Journal obituary .. is the obit by David Gann? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added three more sources. The Guardian obit is long and detailed, could be used to expand the article (I'll send a copy if anyone wants it). Two book reviews in journals. The cites in Google Books that Vejvančický mentioned are additional sourcing if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Looks notable to me, but probably would be better for beign expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Sources[edit]

Who ever wants to expand or improve it might benefit from looking at:

Is construction an industry? Notes towards a greater analytic emphasis on external linkages, pages 287-293
Standardization and pre-assembly- distinguishing myth from reality using case study research
Representation in building, pages 249-253
Putting academic ideas into practice: technological progress and the absorptive capacity of construction organizations
Robust technologies: Study of some aspects of industrial change which reflect the condition of building technologies and current preoccupations with patterns of building failure, pages 162-168
A Japanese perspective on the decline of robust technologies and changing technological paradigms in housing construction: issues for construction management research
Batiment International, Building Research and Practice Volume 18, Issue 2, 1990
Batiment International, Building Research and Practice Volume 17, Issue 1, 1989
Building Research & Information Volume 23, Issue 2, 1995

Or just go here and browse for yourself: http://scholar.google.com.my/scholar?start=40&q=Steven+Gro%C3%A1k&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 jefferyseow (talk) 13:03, 18 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United nations of catan[edit]

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

Unofficial and essentially made up Micronation with no notability itself. I would speedy it but I don't think "A7 - Unremarkable Country" exists :) Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be some rubbish made up by some kids who are bored over the summer holidays..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as essentially a hoax.TheLongTone (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's made up and rubbish, I don't think speedy deletion as a hoax applies (since micronations are almost by definition brought into existence by someone saying "I've created a micronation"). Maybe we need a speedy deletion criterion for micronations of no conceivable notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I can't find anything in Google News or Books, and a regular web search only throws up a couple of wikis and blogs, nothing reliable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't heard anything about a new 'nation' being founded, so why is it here? Tom the Tomato ^Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 14:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. I'd say A7 under "organizations" might be appropriate, but I don't think we'll need it. Ansh6 6 6 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero GBooks and Google News archive hits, and only unreliable sources in general Google search; fails WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE ALL CONSPIRING AGAINST CATAN WE HAVE A SECURITY FORCE MONITORING THIS PAGE NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A06jk2 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*snort* I don't think that WP:NLT applies to that, but it might be interesting reading... Ansh6 6 6 18:51, 17 August 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 admin Reaper Eternal. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 13:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World of Xilm[edit]

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

None notable game, doesn't meet WP:NGAME or WP:GNG Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to cite references and Wikipedia:Too soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SefBau (talk • contribs) 08:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD A1 Dea db eef 09:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even the "official website" would qualify for CSD A1! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:27, 15 August 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. Speedied under G3: Blatant hoax. I couldn't find a single thing that backed this article up and it seems to be an obvious hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Parry[edit]

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

seems like a joke. Checked the references it is not the same person. SefBau : msg 06:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I added the article for speedy deletion under blatant hoax. SefBau : msg 07:07, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinslayer[edit]

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

Fails WP:SONG. Beerest355 Talk 01:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:28, 8 August 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, czar · · 06:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to assume you meant WP:NSONG, as the link you posted is a shortcut to WikiProject Songs. Anyway, the song doesn't satisfy this guideline because it doesn't seem to be covered by any third-party sources. The Time Magazine article has nothing to do with the song, just the event the song was written about. T C N7JM 07:24, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egopay[edit]

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

no evidence for notability of this somewhat promotional article on a routine company. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:30, 8 August 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, czar · · 06:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Routine promotional article. Having to use Alexia as one of only three sources is damning enough. Seyasirt (talk) 14:00, 15 August 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. No prejudice towards discussions of merging or narrowing/expanding the focus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11[edit]

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

Biased premise designed for 'shock citation', meant to draw a positive link between US policy and terrorist suppression without providing counterpoints. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. This is synthesis. While the individual items in the list are notable, gathered together with this title and with that opening paragraph attempt to make a correlation that is original research. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update After reading Ctrew's comments below, I stand by the delete even after the edits by Deadbeef. The fact that this limits itself to Islamist attacks, deliberately excluding terror attacks from other groups by the author's own admission, combined with the 9/11 cut off date just feels inherently biased. I am convinced that this article is by its very nature non-neutral and is attempting -however subtly- to advance a point of view (I.e. look how successful the War on Terror is) based on original research by synthesis by cherry-picking these items and putting them into a list creating the impression that there is a correlation that is not backed by any source. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you base your opinion on Ctrew's comments, then you are basing your opinion on lies. What I find most offensive about the position some are taking on this page is that in the name of eliminating "bias", they are attempting to revise history. Did the War on Terror happen? Yes, and it is ongoing. What is the target of this war? Islamic terrorism. Is the subject of this article notable? Yes. The fact that domestic attacks in the US were thwarted as part of this war is covered in reliable sources. Is this a political subject? Yes. In fact, I believe former President Bush considers it his greatest achievement as president.

Subjectively, whether these facts are good, bad, or otherwise makes no difference. To argue this article should not exist because it is biased is to dispute proven facts. If you can find criticism of these listings in reliable sources, then add it to the article. Instead, you're attempting to remove an important subject from history based on your own bias that you probably don't even realize.

There was no synthesis in this article until Ctrew deleted the reliable sources used in the compilation. I stand by my creation of this article and my reason for doing so: "I created this list because I thought it would be helpful in organizing the list of foiled plots" i.e. I created the list for historical documentation of an important subject, as opposed to the historical revisionism being pushed here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think your comment here proved my point better than I ever could have. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. However, I do not believe your attempt at historical revisionism is a noble task.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing that? Hunh. Here I thought I was just participating in an AfD discussion on Wikipedia. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I guess we all eventually come to the realization that one action can have multiple results.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you! *blush* I just want to pinch your cheeks, you are so cute! :) Honestly, though, I don't think an accurate account of history hinges on this one little list. The that that you seem to think it does speaks exactly to my point on its inherent problematic nature. It appears that you have the stance this is not just a list, but it is a list with a message -- a specific historical point that must be preserved for the historical record to be complete and accurate. It seems the stance is that the mere collection of these items in and of itself makes the point of that message and that is what makes it original research by synthesis.-- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "I don't think an accurate account of history hinges on this one little list." But I believe for this particular subject it does. The message of the article is not original work because the only message the article intentional gives is the one reflected in reliable sources. That is that in the War on Terror waged against Islamic terrorism in the post-9/11 United States, there were claims of thwarted attacks, which altogether became an important political topic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain to you how that is synthesis. You have (A) There is a War on Terror, which is well cited. You have (B) There have been thwarted attacks, which is well cited. However, you are taking (A) and (B) and combining them together to subtly imply (C) That all of B was a direct result of A, which as a standalone statement is NOT cited. Since (C) is the entire purpose of this list, by your own admission, I claim that the entire list is OR by synthesis. I mean, that's kind of the definition of synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the listing of thwarted attacks in multiple sources was removed. These sources did imply B as part of A.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Heritage Foundation, a known conservative political think tank, was an unreliable source. If William relies on it so much, he should take that to the WP:RSN as the burden of proof to show it is a neutral source is clearly with him. The WCBS was restored but as an inline citation; it is currently a dead link.Crtew (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose the source, it is your responsibility to take it to the noticeboard when you are challenged. I have no burden since passing mentions on the noticeboard seem to show it is a reliable source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an alternative. Here's an alternative. Here's an alternative. Here's an alternative. Here's an alternative.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list is obviously written out to be some kind of conspiracy. Each of these items is notable, but they should not share the same list. T C N7JM 08:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've just spent 2 minutes stripping the political subtexts out. Now it's a fine list with no valid reason for deletion. Sheesh. Dea db eef 09:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. Now that there is no synthesis, the list seems fine. I personally don't think we need a list of this sort, but there doesn't seem to be a policy-based reason to delete it, so it stays. T C N7JM 09:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. No real reason to delete. Ansh6 6 6 17:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Better explained below:[reply]
- I understand the comments on the inherent POV and bias of this list. I think it could be salvaged by changing the scope: 1) removing the post-9/11 limitation, 2) re-adding "Islamic" back into the title, as the scope of the list would then become too big, and 3) creating companion lists. The current lists at the articles mentioned above are very unclear and prohibitively long, and would benefit from being forked out. The table-based organization of this list is exactly what is needed for those (see the general List of terrorist incidents, for example), but that would make those articles very long and unwieldy, so what I think is best for this here is keep and repurpose in a way that still meets WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTN, as the current list mostly does. (Okay, to be honest, these articles are all kind of forks of the List of terrorist incidents, but as long as we keep POV out of it they should be fine.) Ansh6 6 6 21:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1 (about content issues): The problem I see with such a list is that it can be used to perpetuate government propaganda, witch hunts, rumors or accusations. I don't feel that way about the list when it only contains items with a citation to an actual conviction on grounds of terrorism and a sentence/term. When you take out the citation to the verdict and sentence and only focus on the event, then I would agree more with deletion arguments. (I deleted all of those on the list that were suspect -- bad pun.) The other worrisome point about this article is the glaring use of unreliable sources, such as the conservative Heritage Foundation. Liberal or conservative organizations have "axes to grind". Some of these are in a category "General" under "References" with no inline citation in the text -- bad approach if you want to be credible. Stick to reliable sources and proper citation. (I deleted those too.) I also deleted a template that is just as biased "Alleged militants in the War on Terror who have lived in the United States". The template is more problematic to fix than this article and should be submitted for deletion based upon the problems already mentioned. Crtew (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 (about focus and title): Why does this list only focus after 9/11? Of course, most people will point to the so-called War on Terrorism. But that also creates a biased focus. Surely there were unsuccessful attacks before 9/11? And where are the cases of homegrown American terrorists? Excluded from the list are racist, neo-fascist, extremists militant groups whose members happen to be Americans. That's a problem with focus that cannot be easily fixed by deleting biased material. Crtew (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article over five years ago. It should be renamed to List of unsuccessful Islamic terrorist plots in the post-9/11 United States per the talk page discussion from 2010. The focus was originally on Islamic terrorism during the American War on Terrorism. It makes no difference whether you agree or disagree with the War on Terrorism, it happened and is ongoing. Whether other articles exist or not about other instances of terrorism, makes no difference. If they should be created, then create them. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the General/Specific listing of sources is an absolutely stupid thing to do. The "General" listing provides sourcing for the list itself. Otherwise it is synthesis. And despite the claim above, there has been no discussion at WP:RSN of whether the Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. Passing mentions of it there seem to suggest it is a reliable source. Furthermore, wcbstv.com is the local CBS affiliate for New York. CBS is a reliable source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored WCBS but this time as an inline citation (which is now a dead link), but if you want the Heritage Foundation restored, you will have to take that to RSN because everybody knows that it is a political organization and not a neutral source. From history, it appears that WCBS was one of the first sources used. Crtew (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are disputing the source's reliability. Therefore, you should bring it before the noticeboard.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Crtew, you added a "fact" tag beside the Anti-Defamation League source even though the source has not been identified as unreliable and was not being used to support a controversial claim. Even if the ADL was unreliable, the proper template to add (for the lazy unwilling to find a reliable source) would be Template:Verify credibility.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William, I know your work and I know you're assuming good faith, but please make it at least "sound" like it. Thank you for your suggestion. Crtew (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:William S. Saturn claims to be the creator, would you please tell us what this article offers that is new or different from Terrorism in the United States? Why should the same content items exist in two articles? Crtew (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the author, nor can I speak for him, but don't you think Terrorism in the United States is a little long and unwieldy? This is one of the valid uses of WP:Content forks. Ansh6 6 6 02:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you're referring to the natural evolution of an article that just got too long, which is how the process is described in Wikipedia:Content forking, and was split. However, if you look closely at the creation dates in 2005, you'll see that ~~these two articles were created at around the same time~~ (replace with: "Terrorism in the United States" created a section for #Failed attacks as of 31 Dec 2005). The creation in that context seems biased and not a natural content fork but a WP:Redundant content fork, which is not allowed according to policy. Crtew (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, get your figures straight. I did not create Terrorism in the United States and don't believe I even edited the article. Back in January 2008, I created the article now up for deletion as a stand-alone. You need to drop your baseless allegations and remove the "duplicate" tag you unnecessarily added. Do we have a competence issue here? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to WP:AGF after that blatantly false statement...in any case, what does it matter if the articles were created in 2005? If "Islamic terrorism in the US" was created at the same time or even before "Terrorism in the US", and then five years later the latter grew too big, wouldn't the former still be a valid fork? Ansh6 6 6 06:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I combined two errors. First, William's comment on creating "the article" was ambiguous, which is I why I asked the question, and I wasn't sure of what he had created since an IP was involved in one. Second, I read the history incorrectly. While retracting my error (see above), my point about redundancy still stands with slight modification (see above). This diff [8] clear shows that "Terrorism in the United States" has had a section #Failed attacks since 31 Dec 2005. The subject of the AfD was created in 2008 duplicating content. The list at that time was not too large, and there was NO discussion about duplicating this list and making a fork for failed attacks with only Islamic terrorism included. I acknowledge and correct my mistakes but I see no reason to back away from my conclusions about a Redundant Fork in light of the facts. Crtew (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not ambiguous. It was in the context of an AFD discussion and the next sentence should have clearly shown what I was referring to. Please do not blame me for your own misunderstanding.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A much better treatment of this whole issue is at Terrorism in the United States under the section "Failed attacks". The content of this AfD is a duplicate and it doesn't provide the other background and context in Terrorism in the United States. I think it's hard for someone to defend a keep of this list after seeing the better article. Crtew (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the two articles are duplicates ~~as there were created by the same person at around the same time~~. My only wish would be that the "Terrorism in the United States" article use a conviction/sentence criterion in listing items. Crtew (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is completely false. I created the article up for deletion. I just did a check and found that I have never even edited "Terrorism in the United States." I created "List of..." as a stand-alone. For unsupported reasons, Crtew removed the sources I used to compile the events listed in the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the AfD article duplicates in part stands as a fact (see this diff) since 31 December 2005 "Terrorism in the United States" has had a section on #Failed attacks: [9] The truth is in the diffs! Crtew (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further duplication exists with Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date. Crtew (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the same information duplicated in multiple articles and then also as stand alone content? Crtew (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That other articles have some content similar makes no difference. This is not duplication. It is not a copy/pasted replication of the same material. For the reasons I already discussed above, this is a subject too important to be relegated to a section in an article. This article needs to be restored to what it originally was before Crtew removed sourcing and others changed the title out of political correctness.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should really re-read about WP:Civility and stop telling me what my motives are. You may see it as political correctness, but I see it as an attempt to bring some quality back in. Just a few of the previous problems with this article before changes: Shoddy to no sourcing. The appearance of political hack work (POV pushing) in sourcing. I haven't even raised BLP issues about some of the content that was deleted because it was unsourced. We're encouraged to be WP:Bold when we see sub-standard content, and I actually think the current version at this moment is a big improvement.Crtew (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I wrote above? I said nothing about your motives. You complain about something I did not even do, and then you discuss my motives. I already mentioned my motives above. So did you. You oppose the article because it "can be used to perpetuate government propaganda, witch hunts, rumors or accusations." Many things can be used for such purposes. That does not mean they are non-notable or should be excised from history. You have been continually lying on this page. I don't take too kindly to that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it stands seems to be quite neutral. As for the "post-9/11" aspect, that seems to be a quite reasonable intersection for the list to cover, in order to avoid the more cumbersome "List of unsuccessful terrorist attacks in the United States since its founding". We may eventually have to limit it with a "but before xxx", but for now it should suffice. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem at first blush, until you dig a little deeper to get to the underlying purpose of the article. It's subtle I admit, but I contend that its not neutral at all when you combine that the list was restricted to Islamic terrorism - explicitly omitting other kinds of terrorism - and the explicit link to 9/11. In many ways, I would place this article in the same category as the hypothetical "List of wars since the establishment of the United Nations". There have been lots of wars but picking the establishment of the United Nations (an organization created to foster world peace) as an 'intersection' isn't reasonable. That would be POV-pushing about the effectiveness of the UN. In much the same way, picking 9/11 as the intersection isn't reasonable as that is POV-pushing about the effectiveness of the post-9/11 "War on Terror". -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not and never have pushed any POV on Wikipedia. I wish I could say the same for those self-professed champions of human rights. Regardless of POV, the concept of foiled Islamic terrorist plots in post-9/11 United States is notable, an important topic in political discussion, and much covered in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mistake me. I'm not attacking you personally and I have absolutely no doubt that you are acting in good faith. I'm not accusing you of POV-pushing, I'm saying this article is inherently POV by its very nature which is very different thing. This is a critique of the article, not of you. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...guys, guys! Cut the mudslinging and discuss the article, please? Ansh6 6 6 21:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's keep this discussion on the article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At this point, factual and covered in RSs. Also, generally agree with points made by Philosopher.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't buy the claims of political bias; there are no statements, implications, or assertions in the article that abuse sourcing to advocate a position. It is not our problem if politicians use this article as part of their games. Them From Space 02:24, 21 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 embassy closures[edit]

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

Fails per WP:NOTNEWS Embassy closures seem to be routine following terrorist threats and in countries that are unstable. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received a significant amount of coverage from literally numerous reliable secondary sources all over the planet. Literally thousands of news articles and in depth analysis. — Cirt (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It had a splash in the news and that was it, are we going to make an article everytime an embassy closes by a country for whatever reason around the globe? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something, possibly AQAP's page or something (struck, see below). WP:NOTNEWS applies somewhat, but given the press time it's received it should be given a mention somewhere (if not in its own article), and is not an inconceivable search term either. Ansh6 6 6 04:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like to place things up for deletion when I don't have to, I had looked into possible merge articles but nothing came to mind as most embassy closures are a result of turmoil in the country or countries involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was more thinking, if the plot itself gets coverage and is placed somewhere, this could be added. Right now, it seems like there is no context for this anywhere, so delete. Can be added in later, nothing lost. Ansh6 6 6 06:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 as the closure was a planed event and the article makes no claim to significance. As an aside also fails WP:NOTNEWS LGA _talk^edits 09:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Write the article first. Not a single citation is currently in the article. I can see how somebody can make a WP:A7 argument as there is no credible claim to significance without citations. I would switch from Delete if somebody were willing to write a WP:Heymann! Otherwise, delete, write it, and resubmit it through proper channels after an article deletion. Crtew (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that the article is anything more than a news splash. If we cover everything that gets "literally numerous reliable secondary sources", Wikipedia'll still be reporting on a whole lot of things that are non-encyclopedic news phenomena. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This event does not have lasting significance and should not have its own article. Andrew³²⁷ 15:49, 19 August 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 Metaphysical naturalism. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-supernaturalism[edit]

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

Nothing more than a dictionary definition and has not grown beyond such in over 3 years. It is unlikely that it ever will. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As original nominator of this AfD, I agree with Ansh666 and Warden that redirect is a very good option. I support the redirect as well. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. Ansh6 6 6 04:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, redirect per Warden below. Ansh6 6 6 17:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't think the article is necessarily a dictionary definition. Seems that Google Books has a large number of books related to the subject. It is obviously a major concept that requires a better article but will it ever improve. I suggest we keep it and see if it can be improved. scope_creep talk 19:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then do it. It's been sitting here like this for 3 years. Ansh6 6 6 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is all that obvious at all that this is a "major concept". Extremely little in article space links to it and this article has gotten no attention in three years. I checked Google books at your suggestion and saw only fleeting references except for one book printed in 1841 and a not notable theology book from 1965. The article simply defines the term and does absolutely nothing else. That makes it a dictdef. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes Wikipedia's threshold of notability. It's a concept, rather than a word definition, in many ways. Several books have entire chapters that cover various aspects of the topic: [10], [11], [12]. Additionally, more sources are available that provide significant coverage: (e.g. [13] - be sure to scroll down). Also, there are two sources listed in the article, one of which is titled "Revolt Against Heaven: An Enquiry into Anti-Supernaturalism", from the Calvin Theological Journal. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to metaphysical naturalism which is a substantial article about the same subject. Warden (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Warden. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:57, 21 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm Seas: Keys to the Successful Treatment of Bipolar Disorder (book)[edit]

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

Non notable book, not even in worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember trying to find sources and save this, but was unable to find anything. Nothing has really changed since that point in time. It's ultimately a non-notable book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely unremarkable book.TheLongTone (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. This is a non-notable self-published book. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 15 August 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. The article had serious copyright violation issues. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INS Sindhurakshak disaster[edit]

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

This is a WP:FORK of INS Sindhurakshak (S63)#2013 explosion and sinking, which is copied word for word, without attribution, from that section. Several editors (myself included) have attempted to redirect the article to that section as a plausible search term, however the article creator has repeatedly reverted the redirecting, hence it being brought for deletion. This sort of article is not something done; the sinking of a naval vessel is, as a rule, covered in that vessel's article, not in a standalone article; it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if a WP:SPINOUT a la Russian submarine Kursk explosion is valid, and if it becomes valid it needs to be properly attributed instead of being WP:COPYVIO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons given by The Bushranger. After deletion, it can be re-directed to INS Sindhurakshak (S63). Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom; and support redirection to INS Sindhurakshak (S63). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no reason to split this off from the main article at all. This one incident is covered well enough within the article on the actual submarine. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Bushranger. Paris1127 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate redirect to INS Sindhurakshak (S63)#2013 explosion and sinking per above. Unfortunate that the author keeps undoing the redirect, as this should have been an easy one. Ansh6 6 6 04:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate redirect, per above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represents major disaster in India, and major disaster in Indian Navy history, with 18 casualties. Current event so the content would change as the news comes in.--Samuelled (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And why does it need to be in a standalone article, instead of in the ship's article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mayhaps due to national pride? Just kidding... anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised that someone would think of it that way. And unless the whole country of the Indian Republic was affected (to any extent possibly imaginable) and mobs (government or private capacity) were mobilised to partake in the rescue/recovery process (both of which, incidentally, runs smack into WP:NOTNEWS), I don't see any good reason why this incident deserves a space on Wikipedia's server. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Per rationale provided by moi and complementing those of TBR. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:41, 15 August 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:SNOW — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 14th clashes[edit]

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

WP is not the news, Political_violence_in_Egypt_(July_2013–present)#13-14_August already exists μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge The stub was created for the sole (good faith) purpose of bolstering an WP:In the news nomination. But Wikipedia is not the news and creating a single page for one days of clashes in an ongoing civil war is the essence of a needless fork. This item should be deleted or merged into an appropriate larger article. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (and possible speedy close) - This is a massive story with hundreds of dead and is a huge turn of events. The article is no longer a stub and merging would overwhelm any potential target article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Keep, of course, and close this nomination. Everyking (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we already have Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present) and this stub merely copies that while introducing a few new facts that are now sufficient for a stand-alone article. This article should be merged into the latter.

That is a very inaccurate description of the difference between the summary at Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present) (6 sentence/1.5 paragraphs) and this article (8 paragraphs excluding lead & background). No doubt this article will continue to grow as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should wait and see how this develops. Sure, it's very recent, but that shouldn't diminish its importance. Based on the ambiguously old statistics in the Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present) infobox, it appears that this over doubles the death count. 8ty3hree (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is such a important turning of the political violence in Egypt that it receives great international concerns. Which makes it deserve a single article. --Liberty & equality —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 15. Snotbot t • c » 02:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, these are by far the most violent clashes since the coup, and represents a dramatic escalation which does warrant a separate article. As this is an ongoing situation, the article could always be renamed as events unfold. --Tdl1060 (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the actual article is August 2013 Egyptian clashes; it was moved. Ansh6 6 6 04:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, give it some time. This single event may have larger repercussions than you may think, and definitely more than the other news stories up at AfD right now. Ansh6 6 6 04:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible rename to something slightly more accurate? Don't know... Ansh6 6 6 07:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close per above. This incident is notable and has developed to such an extent that a few paragraphs in another article won't adequately cover the key points.--Forward Unto Dawn 05:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Seriously? I believe that if a similar situation arose in the USA, we will cover it in as much detail as possible. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep as a highly notable series of events. Was going to reccomen creating this if it wasn't already. Though the title needs to be in line consistently, and as such 14 August clashes is more in lineLihaas (talk) 07:06, 15 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception of Saint Joseph[edit]

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

This article is eligible for deletion on the grounds of verifiability, original research, and fringe. There are no reliable sources. Suarez, Liguori, de Bunis, and Lapide are claimed to support a position that cannot be substantiated. Most of the arguments in favor of the proposition are poorly reasoned Original Research. This entire article appears to be based upon a book by J. Ivan Prcela, an Ohio gentleman who left the seminary over 70 yrs ago, and whose only other work is a book about Croatia during WWII.Mannanan51 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 7. Snotbot t • c » 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was improperly formatted originally, and was blanked by the nominator with the comment 'can't seem to list this'. Snotbot then came along and, apprently, listed a blank AfD. Given the nature of the blanking/withdraw due to inability to properly list the AfD, which has been rectified, I am restoring and relisting this; if the nominator desires a complete withdraw, I have no objections. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 15 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be 3 published sources which support this theory, concept, whatever. What's needed is some sources that dispute it and/or explain that it is a minority position within the Catholic faith. Borock (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly referenced fringe religious beliefs held by only a handful of people do not require encyclopedia articles and do not require some artificial "balance" of pro and con writers. Stating some bit of particular nonsense, then stating that "it is a minority position within the Catholic Church" violates WP:DUEWEIGHT. Edison (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Thompson's book (published 1891) can be read on-line, and is readily searched for the word "immaculate". In every case it can be immediately seen that it is used to refer to mary, except for a couple of passages where it seems to refer to the doctrine of her perpetual virginity. In reference to a nearly five hundred page book I would demand specific citations, but at present I tentatively conclude that Healy did not propose any such notion. I also note that he has an article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, and it's hard to imagine that if he taught such a thing, they would fail to mention it. This shows all the signs of being original theology. Seyasirt (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe position with no apparent mainstream coverage Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability and original research per Seyasirt, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a religious website--mediator_ram - talk2me 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to torpedo someone voting the same way as me, but that rationale doesn't constitute a valid policy and guideline based argument, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Unless this is all lies, it would seem that three theologians at different periods have propounded a view. It is not my view, but the fact that they did so is worthy of note. I suspect that this is a FRINGE position among Catholics, but not so ridiculous as to treat it like a HOAX. Whether the precise title is right is a differnet question. The article is certainly badly presneted in that it lacks a lead. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is untrue that those named in the article made the statements claimed for them, at least as interpreted here, and surely extraordinary claims require at least ordinary evidence. All I could readily check were the cited works, which do not support claims that anyone believed such a theory. Also, this article is phrased as a theological argument, not as a historical account. So yes, I think it is probably "all lies" in that I think it is the author's theory and not that of the names dropped in the article. Seyasirt (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- Please, who are these three mentioned "published sources"/theologians?Mannanan51 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The three authors cited in the lead held no such belief, and did not "teach" this false doctrine as the editor who created the article claimed. Bede735 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The entire article reads like original research. Based on the research of the comments above, much of the article seems to be unfounded on sound sources. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 06:03, 20 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnitibidgon[edit]

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

Not notable. No reliable sources, all sources consist of sales sites for the book. No GHits/GNews hits. Promotional. Approved via AfC, possibly by meatpuppet (see ANI discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 00:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, non-notable self-published book, zero news hits, web hits are all self-published, fails WP:GNG, should never have passed AfC. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not reliable or notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediator ram (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 August 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. postdlf (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little League Softball World Series[edit]

This is softball tournament for children only. It's very not notable, informations are too poor, low quality. This tournament doesn't meet this criteria. Banhtrung1 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Little League Baseball or Little League World Series. While this article could use some work, this is a tournament that comprises teams from six continents. Yes, they are children, but that's hardly justification for deletion. I was able to find all kinds of sources on the LL Softball World Series, including this one in the Washington Post today [14]. For heaven's sake, it is being broadcast live on ESPN!! [15][16]. I think that counts as "non-trivial coverage". I really am gobsmacked that someone would consider a Little League World Series to be "not notable". -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the nominator's strong misunderstanding of WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE. Dea db eef 09:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above - definitely passes WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 17:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Notable per Shinmawa. A merge discussion can take place on the articles' talk pages. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 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.