Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 August	21 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny (dog)[edit]

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

This is a serious example of WP:TRIVIA. If it belongs anywhere at all it is in Portuguese Water Dog as a passing mention. Fiddle Faddle 23:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now per Bo (dog), but if it cannot be expanded in a week or so, then delete (or merge the two). Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is news out there, but a lot of it mirrors itself. Frietjes is right, in that it has the potential for expansion, as there is even talk about it that isn't, "Hey, this exists!" Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We currently have a category with 19 articles about U.S. presidential pets, including a Billy, a Pygmy Hippopotamus given to Calvin Coolidge, that lived until 1955. One editor's opinion that an article topic is "trivia" is not a valid deletion argument, as it is clear that WP:GNG has already been met in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We have to realize that WP is used by both adults and children and I think the latter would be very interested in know what pets the Obamas have. If we have articles for other Presidential pets, why delete this particular one? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know there were articles for Presidential pets. So, I guess that if the Hippo and the cutie kitty have articles Sunny deserves her own. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 20:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The nominator is misusing WP:Trivia, which is used for lists and sections in lists and not for articles. Since the nominator cannot make a relevant, policy-oriented nomination, this AfD qualifies as a Speedy Keep. Individual articles on presidential pets are based on WP:SIGCOV and on reliable sources. This article makes a good start with the use of several Christian Science Monitor articles -- It's a start.Crtew (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I cannot believe there is a discussion on deleting this article. A lot of presidential pets have articles. Why should this one be any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.120.119 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This page and Bo (dog) should be merged into one page. [Soffredo] 05:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that's s strange recommendation. Do you also favor merging Barney (dog) and Miss Beazley (dog) as well? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or the Coen brothers. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Bo has a page, so should Sunny! Bo's page is actually quite lengthy so Sunny's might need some more work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 25 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) 04:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inspection management[edit]

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

Appreciate there's a lot of interesting content here, but it is unencyclopedic and more of an essay. Totally unsourced with an excessive focus on India, and even if that was dealt with the content should all be included in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_theory.

Incidentally, the essay-type style and use of phrases like "the author while working for his company" make me wonder if this is a copyvio. I can't find any sign of the original online though, so it may have been written for WP. If so, it is original research. Korruski^Talk 22:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to selective merge/redirect as WP:ESSAY with WP:UNDUE focus on India and a biblical parable, and a section of WP:NOTHOW at the end too. Ansh6 6 6 04:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - unsourced essay. - MrOllie (talk) 10:51, 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) 04:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sinan Kanatsiz (businessman)[edit]

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

This appears to be another Morning277 article created by a single cowbird editor who created this article and has done nothing before or since. The references include Techsling and Yahoo! Voices, both of which are classic sources for Morning277 articles. The text of the articles cited reads like an obsequious eulogy, further suggesting the article's duplicity, and either no longer exist (are dead links) or have no authorship indicated. Ew. KDS4444^Talk 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This appears to be the fourth attempt to write an article about this non-notable person; the three earlier attempts are here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, the fourth time?? Why wasn't it salted after the third one? I guess someone out there gets points for obstinacy. This time maybe the creature can finally be put down for good. KDS4444^Talk 02:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It probably was. The other three were under the name "Sinan Kanatsiz". That title may have been salted after three creations in three months, which would explain why this one is titled "Sinan Kanatsiz (businessman)". In fact, it was that unnecessary addition of "businessman" that made me suspicious - and prompted me to go looking for the earlier ones. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Because it really was important to disginguish "Sinan Kanatsiz (Businessman)" from the many, many other Sinan Kanatsizs on the English Wikipedia, I know. I suppose that the next time someone goes to recreate the page yet again it will be under "Sinan Kanatsiz (Philanthropist)" or "Sinan Kanatsiz (Politician)" or "Sinan Kanatsiz (Businessperson)" or "Sinan Kanatsiz (Entrepreneur)" or "Sinan Kanatsiz (SAFE-BIDCO)" or "Sinan Kanatsiz (Opera singer)". Probably all of those except the last should also be salted, no? (maybe he WILL make it big in the world of opera someday!!). KDS4444^Talk 22:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He sure does get mentioned in a lot of press releases; reliable sources, not so much. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good detective work. W Nowicki (talk) 21:31, 22 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) 04:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Knightmare On Wall Street" (book)[edit]

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

No reliable sources to support the notability of this book. WP:SPA creator of article also created an article about the author, Edgar Perez. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the book meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Both of the sources cited [1][2] have clearly been set up to promote the book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources independent of the topic, all PR. Book not reviewed by CNBC, FT, Economist, MSNBC, Publisher's Weekly, etc.. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, self-published, vanity insert. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, I believe it has already been deleted at least once. it probably should be salted as well. I am One of Many (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per the above and spectacularly fails WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails the notability, and is very promotionally written. drewmunn talk 17:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per umm, per everyone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rarely say "as above" but this needs to be speedily removed ES &L 19:36, 26 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. Secret ^account 01:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountains of Kuwait[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Kuwait is not a mountainous region and the article page states as much: Kuwait is a desert. There are not many mountains in the country. The current article is populated with a single item, which is referred to as a ridge, not a mountain. In any case, I don't think this list is very useful per WP:LISTPURP. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Geography of Kuwait. This material is decently well-covered at Geography of Kuwait and Kuwait#Geography, and anything here should probably go there. As an aside, I'm not positive that point is actually called Mutla Ridge (but lack of English sources doesn't necessarily mean it isn't). Chris857 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - that's not a mountain...anyhow, Geography of Kuwait mentions this: "Highest point: unnamed location 306 m" - there's no sources calling it "Mutla ridge", apparently. Fails WP:LISTPURP. Ansh6 6 6 04:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ansh666 -Drdisque (talk) 22:22, 27 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. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godrej Platinum[edit]

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

Minor housing project. Does not meet WP:GNG at present. Dwaipayan (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. --Tito☸Dutta 06:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's only claim to notability ("awarded the Platinum precertification by IGBC (Indian Green Building Council)") isn't even supported by the linked reference. In fact, it seems the Indian Green Building Council has close ties to Godrej; notability is not established by giving certifications and awards to oneself. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-As per norm.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 08:53, 23 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. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godrej Serenity[edit]

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

Minor housing project. Does not meet WP:GNG. Dwaipayan (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's only claim to notability (a precertification from IGBC (Indian Green Building Council)) isn't even supported by the linked reference. In fact, it seems the Indian Green Building Council has close ties to Godrej; notability is not established by giving certifications and awards to oneself. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-As per norm.- - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:18, 23 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. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godrej Horizon[edit]

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

Minor housing project. Does not meet WP:GNG. Dwaipayan (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's only claim to notability (a precertification from IGBC (Indian Green Building Council)) isn't even supported by the linked reference. In fact, it seems the Indian Green Building Council has close ties to Godrej; notability is not established by giving certifications and awards to oneself. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also: this, this Tito☸Dutta 20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-As per norm.- - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:19, 23 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 per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew; no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Orlowski[edit]

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

Fails all criteria outlined at WP:PORNBIO. No sources or refernces, merely one line of biography and a long list of films. Appears to be an open and shut case. Finnegas (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I accept that the article now has numerous refernces to reliable independent sources such as Der Spiegel which satisfy WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have you applied WP:BEFORE? PORNBIO does not affect general notability criteria, and I see several dozens of reliable sources available about her, both in Google News archives and in Google Books. I will add some of them shortly but remember that AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Cavarrone. Passes the GNG per [3][4][5] Finnegas, you seem to be deliberately targeting foreign porn actors for deletion without considering foreign sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing deliberate in my actions, the sole motivation is that the articles appear not to be notable. By foreign I presume you mean European? In addition, unfortunately the only Continental European language I have any knowledge of is French & I would be unable to establish what the source said and moreover the reliability & independence. Finnegas (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By foreign I mean non-English speaking. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:18, 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 snow delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Savio D'Sa[edit]

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

Insignificant living person. the tone of the article is overly promotional, my honest assessment is that it is probably an autobiography due to excessive personal detail, and it is a clear speedy delete under promotion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, sources only have trivial mentions of him (other than one). Insulam Simia (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sam 🎤 21:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable person. I can't seem to find any reliable sources heavily covering this guy. T C N7JM 23:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable guy. The tone of this article looks very promotional, and it might even be an autobiography. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete i've added the tag. This is clearly a vanity article.

Comment The editor has stated that he is not Savio. Therefore it is not an autobiography. Insulam Simia (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User now blocked indef. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 10:06, 22 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X Blake Freeman X[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. A Youtube sensation, and not much of one at that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non notable musician. I have flagged the article for this, too. Fiddle Faddle 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daykey High School[edit]

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

Extremely short stub (although this is alone not a reason for deletion), but although it may exist, searches for even a Korean language website under 대기고등학교, have revealed only social media listings. Does not therefore meet WP:GNG, and the lack of further reliable information confirming it as a mainstream K12 school would fail our precedent for keeping High Schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Try this Korean-language search for the school`s name: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=%EB%8C%80%EA%B8%B0%EA%B3%A0%EB%93%B1%ED%95%99%EA%B5%90&oq=%EB%8C%80%EA%B8%B0%EA%B3%A0%EB%93%B1%ED%95%99%EA%B5%90&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j43i53.1035.13802.0.18188.2.2.0.0.0.0.142.255.0j2.2.0...0.0...1ac.1.rKrvKbD6fps Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, awaiting clarification - I can't understand machine-translated Korean well enough to tell if anything in the search above is of use. Is there a Korean-reading editor out there willing to check? Ansh6 6 6 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try pinging someone from Category:Wikipedians in Seoul. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to wait. I'm sleeping now and busy tomorrow. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Ansh6 6 6 05:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing consensus for reasons endlessly reiterated that articles on verified secondary schools are kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is a bit special - is it verifiable? Ansh6 6 6 03:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its existence certainly seems to be verifiable. That's enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that secondary schools of verified existence are inherently notable. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 25 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. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Udupas of Kandavara[edit]

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

Rambling misdirected personal WP:OR commentary on an ill-defined subject. Nothing of value. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against an actual article about this in the future, whatever it actually is. Rutebega (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be about a surname, but completely unsourced. Fails WP:N unless sources treating the surname can be shown to exist. Deor (talk) 13:24, 22 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) 04:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mic slayer[edit]

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

NN rapper. Possibly autobio or serious COI. No references to assert notability. Fails GNG and BLP reference requirements. Alexf^(talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was speedied before. Was BLPPRODed and the OP removed it without addressing the PROD concerns. OP has been aware of the issues for a while (see his Talk page). -- Alexf^(talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no coverage whatsoever in any sort of sources let alone reliable ones. The assertion of a "major label" release seems to be overblown as I can find no information about a record company called "Fuel Up Records". -- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, could have been A7 Speedy deleted. Looks like a autobiography too. STATic message me! 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, messy article that also fails the music guidelines. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:14, 27 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. Secret ^account 02:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Group[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:25, 20 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 20. Snotbot t • c » 18:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manifestly notable major Peruvian seafood company that trades publicly on the Lima stock exchange. Appears to have thousands of employees and revenues in the 100s of millions. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:CORP -Drdisque (talk) 22:25, 27 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 — withdrawn by nominator.I am One of Many (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Grids[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I told you on your talk page, this one was not worth nominating. It's a state-sponsored energy utility with 190 thousand employees! It's an absolute behemoth. Just because you haven't found (or haven't looked, more likely) for sources, doesn't mean you can assume something does not have substantial coverage... give me a break with this nom. There is more coverage than you can shake a stick at. -- Y not? 20:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I concede your point. I'll withdraw it and close it.I am One of Many (talk) 20:19, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Newton[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. No pro playing time, so does not meet notability there either. WP:TOOSOON Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally we find that college football quarterbacks for Division I teams generate enough press to surpass WP:GNG and this can be confirmed in a matter of moments in this case simply by checking the news feed. Granted the article needs cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of RS news on subject. Seems to meet guidelines since there's been articles written about subject in numerous RS. Caffeyw (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin DavidEllis simply votes the same at mulitple AfDs . eg [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
question what's wrong with agreeing with previous comments? I'll grant it's not a "new argument" and it's not a !vote. But what's wrong with agreement?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:46, 27 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 support for deletion, and any merge considerations can proceed through normal discussion and editing. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ufaneftekhim[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As one of the largest refiner companies in Russia, there is a number of independent sources in Russian to satisfy WP:CORP and WP:GNG, so I oppose deleting based on lack of natibility. However, as the company was merged last year with its parent company Bashneft and both articles are small, it would be better to merge this article to the Bashneft article (actually there is really no useful content currently to merge, so in practice that means redirecting this article to Bashneft and expand the Bashneft article with new information). Beagel (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is an editorial decision, not a deletion criterion. -- Y not? 20:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not deletion criteria and if you read my comment, you see that I not suggested that the article should be deleted. However, the AfD discussion may end with consensus to merge the article with another article. This is quite common. Beagel (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very silly, unconstructive nom. I added a ref. There's plenty more. -- Y not? 20:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For this one, there are lots of sites claiming this is a fraudulent company [12]. I'm not sure if it is or is not, I think we should let a few others take a look?I am One of Many (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, they'll be taking a look for 7 days now. -- Y not? 20:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a announcement about this at Bashneft's website (unfortunately only in Russian) informing about fraudulent sites using names related to Bashneft and its daughter companies. Company claims that these sites are not related to Bashneft and provides links to official sites. For Ufaneftekhim the official site was www.unh.ru. However, as Ufaneftekhim merged with Bashneft, this website redirects now to the Bashneft's site. Information in English about merger is provided at Sistema, a parent company of Bashneft; site [13] and in a number of mainstream news in Russian. Beagel (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Comment this article should be merged with the Bashneft article and perhaps someone who is interested could watch it closely, as there appear to be some issues with fraudulant activity in the name of the company happening online. It's possible this article was originally created for that purpose, so it should be watched closely when kept/merged. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:58, 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. postdlf (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beezow Doo-doo Zopittybop-bop-bop[edit]

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

This article is not about a notable person. Just because he has a silly name, it doesn't mean that he's notable. Also, this page is an orphan.

Regentswift (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having a silly name and being arrested doesn't make a person notable (or a suitable topic for an encyclopedia). The article creator has claimed it meets WP:BASIC, but IMO it fails WP:NOTNEWS ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events ... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.").DexDor (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; news coverage limited to the "..and finally" type of stories. LGA _talk^edits 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After my notability tag was removed, I considered bringing this to AfD. But I didn't, so someone else did. Everyone else has already stated why this should be deleted, so I won't retread that. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only thing possibly notable is that he changed his name to this. One event does not make someone notable. It's slow news season, so stories like this get placed to fill in for any notable news. Caffeyw (talk) 05:17, 24 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. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kjörling[edit]

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

Writer who does not appear to be notable per our guidelines, WP:BIO. The awards mentioned in the article do not seem to be notable themselves. Only source cited is subject's own website. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Equivalent articles on the Swedish Wikipedia have been deleted multiple times, variously on grounds of non-notability and advertising. AllyD (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Gourmand World Cookbook Awards nomination in 2013 can be verified on their website. As to whether that nomination (and silver award) is sufficient to confer biographical notability, I think not. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There should probably be some discussion as to whether any award from Gourmand makes someone notable. No significant coverage of those awards is evident in the Gourmand World Cookbook Awards article. Even if it was a notable contest, a second-place award is likely not a claim to notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not very notable, his books are in Swedish only, and the books he's written are a part of a series of rather small books on food and drink issues so the number is not quite as impressive as they may seem on a first look. A friend of mine hasa actually written three titles in that series, but I don't plan on adding article about him in English Wikipedia until he starts publishing full-length books in English. (Actually, A.K. has written enough books to be considered notable on svwiki, so the article there must have had other issues than just notability, such as COI or being too promotional.) Tomas e (talk) 12:09, 22 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) 04:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banco Votorantim[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It would be best if someone who speaks Spanish could look into non-English sources for this article, however, Banco Votorantim is covered on several international news sites here and here for example. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment** - The references above seem to be about a company buying out the subject of this article, not about the subject itself. Caffeyw (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin DavidEllis simply votes the same at mulitple AfDs . eg [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the studious efforts of Northamerica1000 in identifying all those sources listed above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 27 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. I saw the last minute vote, but the original concern still stands. A fully referenced List of South American gas companies is acceptable, but not in the current form. Secret ^account 02:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian natural gas companies[edit]

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

A list of only one article and I cannot find list articles for natural gas companies for other countries. I am One of Many (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a well developed Category:Natural gas companies by country category structure, so a parallel list structure is obviously feasible. There are nine entries in Category:Oil and gas companies of Brazil; perhaps this list should have its scope similarly expanded. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I listed this list because it was created by a sock User:Edson Rosa and I didn't, in a brief search, find other such lists for countries, but now that you pointed out the relevant category to me, I see that there is at least one other list for Japan. Since there are so few, expanding this list "List of South American gas companies" might be more appropriate.I am One of Many (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very short and unsourced. No prejudice for creating List of South American gas companies. Beagel (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very short and unsourced -- Y not? 14:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles linked are cited. I moved the article to List of South American gas companies as per the above suggestion. Broader topic is certainly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:14, 28 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. Secret ^account 02:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klimovo (air base)[edit]

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

Delete : No references//Might be a pure fiction as no other article or related stuff found on net related to Klimovo air base except this one.//Claims made into the article are baseless. Anup Mehra ^✈ 17:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment certainly exists and can be found with a Google search try its code "RU-7673" and Klimovo in your favourite search engine, I have no view on notability yet as it appears from the searches it may be closed but it may have some history. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ah! Thanks. I found some details using the airport code RU-7673. Though none says, ' It has a standard military airfield; appears vaguely disused on Google Earth imagery. It served as aWorld War II airfield and was expanded from 2000 to 2500 m around 1980.'(as claimed in the article) and yeah it falls under the wikipedia notability guideline. It was an air base in Russia and it is closed now. link1 link2 link 3 link 4 And about the historical background, The key word 'Ru-7673 klimovo' doesn't match any google book search results, as well. Anup Mehra ^✈ 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any evidence of notability. If it is later found that this article can be expanded, there will be no problem salvaging what little useful information the stub currently contains.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 21, 2013; 16:50 (UTC)

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. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gallino, the Chicken System[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Claim to fame is it is a "weird movie." reddogsix (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlos Atanes. Delete. I can't find anything to show that this is independent of its director. I do note that the director's page needs some cleanup, so I'll try to get to that later on tonight. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to notice some notability issues with the director, but I'll see what I can find for him as a whole. I've redirected a few of his films to his main article, as they had issues with notability as well. The thing about his movies is that there are a ton of sources in places that are unusable as RS and not a lot that actually are. I've noticed some definite neutrality issues in his articles as well, as most are/were unsourced and were written from the viewpoint of a fan, using various buzzword terms and the like. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to delete. I was trying to salvage the director's article and I ended up finding that other than some reviews through Film Threat, there just isn't any true coverage of his work. There are reviews and notice in places such as non-usable film blogs and the like, but nothing that I can say would really show notability for him or for his work. He seems to have gone largely ignored. This is sort of par for the course for indie filmmakers, but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to the same requirements for reliable sources. I'd probably recommend listing the director for deletion as well. I've redirected all but this film to his entry, but if they're un-redirected then you might need to lump them into the AfD as well. I'll be honest, this has the smell of WP:WALLEDGARDEN on it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Atanes himself is sufficiently notable: here, for example, is a thorough profile in Bright Lights Film Journal [28], and the Spanish Wikipedia cites some sources, for example an article in Diario Sur (about the film Frequently Asked Questions) which is copied at Atanes' website.[29] However, I couldn't find any coverage about this new film--maybe it's just too soon. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... that's a pretty light coverage. In any case, I won't nominate his article but I might end up nominating the rest of his films as there's someone that's been undoing the redirects. I don't want to have to go through the long AfD process, but I suppose I'll have to if they keep it up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:54, 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. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Road Traffic Injury Research & Prevention Center[edit]

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

Does not mention the topic, being the prevention center, instead it is a lecture about the road traffic situation in ~~India~~Pakistan. No sources. Fails WP:COATRACK, WP:NFT and WP:GNG. Ochiwar (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this myself and briefly considered deletion. Seems appropriate. Ξnvelope Salad {^T_C} 17:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aycliffe ^Talk Previously Tommietomato. 20:29, 26 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 no consensus. I suspect that any close I make here is going to be whizzing along to DRV very quickly (you don't need to discuss with me, just let me know) but I have closed NC here because there doesn't seem to be agreement as to what actually comprises a deletion reason when a list doesn't fall under SALAT but is instead a split-out. Also, I note that at least one of the lists (List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A–C)) has started to be improved and sourced; I suspect that if all of the articles could be fixed in that manner there might be fewer issues; I agree that the pure lists are not, at the moment, particularly encyclopedic, but that's simply my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the rational below:

Complete unsourced listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory. Many, if not all of the entries are not-notable in their own right, so it fails WP:SAL. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 07:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The lists for being completely unsourced and non-notable and the list of lists because it is bereft of content. T C N7JM 18:26, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wouldn't object to a list of notable works, but these lists are ridiculous. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR, etc. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I personally find the list to be notable enough to stay. Rafi had claimed to have recorded 25k-26k songs in his letter to Guinness World Records. Finally GWR mentioned his claim as claim and wrote only 4516 songs. We over here have over 5000 songs. And i don't quite understand why List of songs recorded by Selena gets to stay and this doesn't? Is it because it doesnt have a lengthy prose, no pictures, no proper format? Or is it because its just too long? And how is nominator calling all entries as non-notable? I doubt he has any knowledge of the subject. Why is "Aaj Mausam Bada Beimaan Hain" non-notable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. We judge each article independently of others. If another article needs deleting also, then propose it. But the existence of one article is not a justification to keep or delete another. I am sure there are some notable songs in the list under discussion here, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and this list is an indiscriminate collection of song titles that happened to be performed by one musician. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non of the songs on any of the lists are notable - IE they don't have their own article. There's no point in having pages of song titles that simply don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean a list should only exist when a category can also exist? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not what I mean at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the second nomination for this article, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Songs by Mohammed Rafi - where there was a substantial vote in favor of keep. I have not changed my mind, yet. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what policy based rationale do you have to keep this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know also. The 'keep' arguments in that other AFD were primarily based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and 'me too'. No policy-based rationale to keep, while we have WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as arguments to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not forced to close the AfDs after the 7 days period. If no worthy rationale is made, relisting or no-consensus is a likely result. (Correct me if i am wrong as you would know better than me.) The consensus of the previous AFD was keep. What has changed now that the articles should now be deleted? Did Rafi unsung his songs? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Nothing from the last AfD actually was linked to any policies. These lists clearly fail WP:SAL, WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unless you can argue otherwise. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per User:Dharmadhyaksha. There is long standing precedent of discographies by artists (see Category:Lists of songs by recording artists ). Unless the nominator can show how this is different from the other 250 pages Keep. The Legend of Zorro 06:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the individual songs can be easily referenced. For example reference for the first entry Aa Aa Aa Chhori Aa Aa Aa, Ja Ja Ja Chhora Ja Ja Ja. So referencing individual entries is not a problem. The Legend of Zorro 06:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good arguement for keeping. The category you quote does contain many lists, and most of them are notable (IE - they have lists of songs by each artist that are notable in their own right). Sourcing that the song exists does not equate to the song being notable. Can you not see that these lists are just a load of non-notable items? How do they pass the notability requirements? Or the requirements for a stand-alone list? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the individual songs are non notable? As I can see while the individual artists have bluelinks in National Film Award for Best Male Playback Singer or Best Female Playback Singer or Best Lyrics or Best Choreography the individual songs for which they won it are redlinks. It is high time to create the pages not delete them. The Legend of Zorro 07:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So all of these 20,000+ songs are notable in their own right? Maybe you'd like to create articles for each one. As it stands, this is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 20,000+ figure is debatable however I did not claimed that all of his songs are notable. However a good many are deserving articles and all of the entries can be referenced as shown above. The Legend of Zorro 08:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how does these lists meet WP:SAL and the WP:GNG? They are lists of non-notable items. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment 3 cm above. This is same as the 250 other pages in Category:Lists of songs by recording artists. Not all but many of them are notable in their own right. This passes WP:SAL and the WP:GNG. The Legend of Zorro 10:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually nothing like most of the other pages in the category you've linked. I've chosen a random page from that category, List of songs recorded by 30 Seconds to Mars. Take that list and compare it to any one of the lists up for deletion. Notice a difference? Almost any song in the 30 Seconds to Mars list either has a link to itself because it is itself notable, or it has a link to the album it was included in in the next column, where it is listed in a track listing. Not to mention that the 30 Seconds to Mars list has many references and external links. These lists, on the other hand, are just names of songs, some of which have the year the list claims them to be released in afterward. There are no sources, no external links, nothing at all proving any of this is notable. In that regard, this list does, indeed, fail WP:SAL. T C N7JM 10:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you would say keep if the film articles were linked and what awards the songs won were written? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I would !vote keep if the songs proved notability. Nothing in the list proves any kind of notability. T C N7JM 10:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:SAL clearly states "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia", so I have no idea how Zorro comes to the rationale that these lists are notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not wikilawyer please. WP:SAL is not a policy but reflects a consensus of a notability threshold. The Legend of Zorro 13:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyer is not a policy either. Do you know any policies and how they work? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Lugnuts. Fails on multiple levels. Caffeyw (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sheer number of guidelines which every one of these nominated articles fails could in and of itself form a long, winding list. It's an indiscriminate collection of songs, not all of which are notable and the collection itself seems like it was mostly copied/compiled/lifted/however-you-want-to-term-it from a number of English-language weblogs for Hindi music. It's just a pointless catalog of largely non-notable work posing as an encyclopedia entry. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rafi is an extremely notable singer and just because his discography is gargantuan doesn't mean that and individual song is less legitimate than another.Pectore^talk 02:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not disputing the notability of the individual, but none of the songs are notable in their own right. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the songs? Who decides so? The Legend of Zorro 07:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP:NSONG for one. Have a read. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go as far as to say none of the songs are notable, as I'm not familiar with any of them, but it is obvious that not all of them are. T C N7JM 07:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now exactly that's the thing. None of you are familiar with any of the song. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I am familiar with the notability policies, which you don't appear to be. Have a read of the song policy. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--This is a list of no notable items. This fails WP:SAL. Delete all this kind of article, except article split due to WP:TOOLONG--- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 15:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a stand-alone list, so WP:SAL does not apply, but is an article split due to WP:TOOLONG, or do you think that there is room in Mohammed Rafi for this list? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I am inclined to delete the lists, since none of the four keeps are based on the policies, and most of them are countered by OTHERSTUFF. However, four is a significant minority, and I am relisting the nomination for one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And which of the deletes are based on policy? If you read WP:SAL, WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE you will see that none of them is remotely applicable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No keeps have substantially proven why a huge list of mostly unremarkable songs deserves to stay. Previous "List of songs recorded by artist" lists have ended in delete. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a huge list of non-notable songs. Fails WP:NOTDIR. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 00:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know ...that majority of the Delete voters in this AfD can't even understand Hindi and lack competence to call stuff they don't understand as non-notable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you know ...that WP:GNG is written in such a way that we don't have to speak Hindi or understand the topic, only the referencing? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Dharmadhyaksha - Maybe you can fix the article for the less gifted of us who don't speak Hindi? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix the article. But the problem here is more of bias. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a plan for fixing the article, I strongly suggest that you articulate it clearly. A doable plan for achieving clear notability is likely to see changes in !votes. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we didn't have any time limits on Wikipedia as i alone can't sit and fight such bias everywhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time limit here, but that doesn't protect pages that don't establish notability to stay in article space forever until somebody comes along and does so. There's nothing wrong with moving the pages to your userspace if you intend to improve the articles for them to be moved back to article space later. Can I also ask that you please stop accusing us delete !voters of bias? Accusations like this border on uncivil behavior and should be avoided. T C N7JM 12:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can ask. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continually claiming that it depends on the referencing currently within the article try reading WP:GNG, and you will see that it is not written in such a way. It depends on the existence of sources, which is something that is difficult to check if you don't understand the language or the script that they are written in. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If deleted, please move all the pages to my user space. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make a copy of them in your user-space anyway. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have problem even with that? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it for you to setup a sandbox page and copy & paste the text into it right now? Why should an admin do this for you? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very. And he should only if he is deleting this. & basically it isn't your business. Also try reading WP:CWW. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not copy and paste for reasons explained in some details at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Even after the deletion is long over, you can ask for a WP:REFUND. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that and i can do this. You people objecting on my request to userify these lists if deleted makes my and other editors opinion stronger on bias being the reason for these all AfDs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A book was published from these few articles, Jesse Russell; Ronald Cohn (June 2012). List of Songs by Mohammed Rafi. Book on Demand. ISBN 978-5-513-28074-3. Retrieved 27 August 2013., though this book can not be accepted as source in Wikipedia per WP:MIRROR, the popularity of the topic should be noted here. More books have been written only on the songs of Rafi, for example see Mohammed Rafi (2001). Selected Songs Of Rafi (Roman). Diamond Pocket Books (P) Limited. ISBN 978-81-7182-179-2. Retrieved 27 August 2013..
Please also note, very recently Indian music company SaReGaMa published a "giant collection" of Md. Rafi's songs. This initiative was supported by India Times. I am searching for more sources. --Tito☸Dutta 18:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any page(s) on here can, and indeed have, been published as books via Google books. That's nowhere near close to establishing notability. Here are just some examples one, two, three. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) edit conflict twice.. Yes, you are right, theoretically one may publish all Wikipedia articles as books following Wikipedia licenses. But, practically not all articles are published, only a small number of articles (in comparison of the total number of articles at Wikipedia). And the second book above is not related to Wikipedia. I have just got information of another book Mohammed Rafi ke Amar Geetiyan dedicated on the songs of Md. Rafi. --Tito☸Dutta 19:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, can you link to said book? Second, how does this establish notability for every single one of the songs on the lists? WP:SAL states that they either must all be notable or they must all not be, and the title Selected Songs of Rafi (Roman) implies that this is just a list of selected songs that the author deemed notable enough for inclusion. T C N7JM 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TCN7JM, I have linked two books above which I have found in Google Books. I have not found any online copy of the third book. I have been informed that in between 2000—2002 several full length articles of Md Rafi's songs were written in Hindi newspaper Sanmarg. I am trying to find these news articles and other sources at this moment. --Tito☸Dutta 21:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "book" is an automatically generated publication that doesn't exist on paper unless someone has been fool enough to pay an exorbitant amount for a physical copy. Such books are available for every Wikipedia category that has been around lonbg enough for the the scammers to pick it up. There are reasons to keep these articles, but this is not one of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I'm shocked by the number of "delete" opinions we have had here. We routinely have complete lists of songs for many barely notable British and American singers, but there are people who consider themselves qualified to decide what goes in an encyclopedia and say that we shouldn't have such a list for one of the greatest Indian popular music singers of all time. This is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but such extreme systemic bias as to amount to institutional racism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've calmed down a bit I'll address those who think that common sense can be bypassed by quoting some alphabet soup. The policy reasons that have been given for deletion are WP:SAL, WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is not a stand-alone list, but a sub-article of Mohammed Rafi with content that is obviously too long to have in the main article, and none of the seven criteria of WP:DIRECTORY or the three criteria of WP:INDISCRIMINATE come anywhere within a million miles of describing these articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A stand-alone list is, by definition, an embedded list that stands as its own page. So yes, these are stand-alone lists. T C N7JM 21:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty poor definition, as these lists do not stand alone but are an integral part of our coverage of Mohammed Rafi. Anyway WP:SAL is part of our manual of style, so does not constitute a deletion criterion, and the more relevant part of our manual of style is WP:WORKS, in particular, "if an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of that person's works ... is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable." Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make it exempt from the other guidelines for stand-alone lists set in the MOS. It still needs to be a list of notable works. T C N7JM 22:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just repeat this mantra that everyone is reciting can you please explain why this needs to be a list only of notable works? And, if you're more interested in slavishly following guidelines than using a bit of common sense to see what is the best way to build an encyclopedia, where in WP:SAL does it actually say that? Part of our coverage of creative artists in any field is to list their works, and if there are too many works to list within the main article we have separate articles. This applies to an American author who has written a couple of books and, just the same, to an Indian singer who has performed thousands of songs. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline's common selection criteria's first two numbered points state that a list must contain either only notable works (unless they are all verifiably part of the group the list is covering and could be covered in a forthcoming article), or that it must contain a list of all non-notable works that wouldn't qualify for their own articles at all. T C N7JM 23:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are, as you say, common selection criteria, and have no "must" about them. What do they have to do with deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No guideline has any "must" about it, but I haven't seen a convincing reason to change my !vote based on the guidelines you have presented yet. T C N7JM 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who introduced the word "must", so you can't object to my replying to your specific wording. How do you make the logical leap from two criteria being listed as common selection criteria for lists to the conclusion that lists that use different criteria must (or should, or may on the basis of this criterion) be deleted? That section is simply not talking about anything related to article deletion but just giving some examples. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG have not been addressed. By your logic, I could start to expand a biography on a chef to list every meal they've ever made. Then due to WP:SIZE, split that out to a stand-alone article and saying that the chef is notable, so therefore the list of meals they've made must also be notable. There is simply nothing to say this huge list of songs is notable. Yes, they exist and the singer is indeed notable, but a list of them that all fail WP:NSONG? Not needed at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible citations: Found Sad Songs from Bollywood Films: (Selection of 130 Popular Songs from Hindi Films). Star Publications. 2007. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-1-905863-13-6. Retrieved 27 August 2013.. This books may be used for a number of Rafi songs. If manually searched there are many more books which discusses on the songs of Rafi. --Tito☸Dutta 23:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I'm seeing, this book doesn't mention Rafi once. T C N7JM 23:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started adding the book's content as reference in List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A–C). Please follow the references which include the page numbers. There are more books, we need to gather all first. --Tito☸Dutta 00:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up, my concern was not addressed. Where in this book does it say that Rafi was the singer of these songs? It just seems to say that the songs exist, not that Rafi was the singer, which doesn't seem suitable as a source in this list, seeing as verifiability is one of the problems. T C N7JM 01:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how and where you are seeing, I am giving you direct link of a page where it mentions "SINGER: Rafi". I have started adding the songs which are included in the list for now. --Tito☸Dutta 02:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. I guess the English text just registered as a different language seeing as it's surrounded by what I'm assuming is Hindi. Thanks. T C N7JM 02:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are using IAST. --Tito☸Dutta 02:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They say you learn something every day. T C N7JM 03:13, 27 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. Despite Great11 misleading vote count comment below as AFD is not a vote, consensus is clear here. Secret ^account 02:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hassane Amraoui[edit]

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

Article is short and shows lack of notability EuroCarGT 04:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brevity is not a reason for deletion. The referenced career review article from Le Carrefour des Opinions does make claims for the subject's notability ("parmi les professionnels les plus remarqués de Diversité artistique Montréal"). It does feel like more than that single source is needed, however. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being among the "prominent" members of an organization isn't really a very substantial notability claim, especially when that organization is of exclusively local focus and doesn't even have an article by which we can judge whether it's notable enough for us to care who its members are. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Banhtrung1 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable firsts are sufficient for inclusion. He is notable look please at french wikipedia ( history of contribution) http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hassane_Amraoui&action=history

Please look at references french [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calise (talk • contribs) 09:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gouvernement of Quebec Canada [31] Book [32] look at this please [33] dictionary of algerien artiste from book google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Great11 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[34]

[35] [36]

Thank you --Calise (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The Books are nothing but a listing of various Algerian artists, nothing to give notability. One of them is just an updated version of the other. The Government website is about a class being offered by the subject, not about the subject. Worldpress is a blog website. Final two websites listed are 1st one a blog, and final one a facebook type page for artists. Having an article on another Wiki is not grounds for notability on the English Wiki. Caffeyw (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was Notable --Vikoula5 (talk) 16:50, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. No coverage in RS. Only mentions seem to be promotional in nature and/or not from RS. Caffeyw (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Notable [37]

[38] lecarrefourdesopinions [39] lavireedesateliers [40] Aures [41] [42] [43] Maghreb culture [44] [45] Radio Canada [46] [47] arabesques-editions [48] [49] Ministry of Foreign Affairs Algeria official site [50] El Watan newspaper Algeria 2010 [51] ADD 2BOOKS REFERENCES GOOGLE BOOK 2 DICTIONARY OF ARTIST OF ALGERIA into references LOOK THE YEARS 2010 [52] book Algérie Art Plastique 2010 , Mansour Abrous, edition L'Harmatan [53] book Dictionnaire des artistes algériens: 1917-2006 - Page 25, Mansour Abrous, 2006, edition L'Harmatan [54] [55] THANK YOU --Calise (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Calise - I think you're not understanding what notability means. Having your name mentioned in a list of every Algerian artist when you're an Algerian artist is not a sign of notability. Having an announcement by a radio station that you're going to be on the show, is not a sign of notability. A routine PR release stating he's having an exhibit does not show notability. A biography page written directly by the subject does not show notability. Bottom line, yes there's tons of hits for his name. However the hits are not in articles about the subject, they're all either 1)Routine PR releases, 2)Facebook type pages edited by the subject/his PR team, 3)Blogs - Which are mainly just re-posting the announcements/PR releases, 4)Bio pages written directly by the subject or 5)His name being mentioned along with everyone else that qualifies in a book listing all "Algerian Artists". Yes I took a look at each page you posted, they're all the same missing the same things. Caffeyw (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Caffeyw but i follow the General_notability_guideline . --Calise (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. Reliable sources are media coverage (newspapers, books, magazines, etc.) which is independent of the subject himself. Press releases do not count; his own website does not count; the webpages of galleries that have booked shows with him do not count; Wordpress blog entries do not count. And it is not sufficient for his name to merely be mentioned on a page (routine event listings, simple lists of artists, etc.), either. It is not enough to just be able to show sources which demonstrate that he exists; he has to be the primary subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. So no, I'm sorry, but not even one of those links gets him past WP:GNG. (The Radio-Canada link would count if it was to the real interview, but not if it's just to the episode summary.) Show me articles about him in the arts section of Le Devoir or Le Journal de Montréal, show me a television interview on Radio-Canada's or TVA's arts magazine shows, show me he's been on Désautels (or dig out the actual Tam-Tam interview and not just the listing), show me feature articles about him in real magazines, and then maybe we'll talk. Bearcat (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of valid reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write a good article about him, but this is not that article and these are not the sources that are going to get it there. Bearcat (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC) comment'[reply]

is it a reason to delete because is not a good article!?

he is algerian, he get his notability first in Algeria, if i see just sources but i don't found if the devoir or Journal de montreal write article, and is it a reason to delete? Thank you--Calise (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The devoir i get it sorry [56] Thank you--Calise (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting to get the right idea — but you're not there yet. That's just a news brief about somebody else winning an award — it has Amraoui's name in it, but he isn't its subject and it isn't a very long article. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

now What you think? we keep or we delete , I'm calise user Thank you --Great11 (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I edit the article in french but it is short, and i edit many articles in wikipedia french bigger than that, but i must have reference to write and i need help because my english is not number one, but we must have consensus we deleted or we keep because all my articles are short like this article Thank you --Great11 (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this article in Liberté (Algeria) news press in Algeria, like El Waten, They are important in Algeria [57] The Subject is Tatouag Berber in Aurès, the reporter give only name of only painter in Algeria who represent the Aures 'D’ailleurs, l’artiste peintre Amraoui Hacene, installé au Québec, réalise de belles œuvres avec ces formes millénaires' I translate 'Moreover, the artist Amraoui Hacene installed in Quebec, produces beautiful works with these ancient forms'. , the reporter don't give another name of painter, we Know they are many painters in Aures but Why the reporter write only the name of Hassane Amraoui,????? for promotion or for money or for notability ???? We Have many painters in Aures in France ,etc, like Cherif Merzouki (Aurès), for example [58] , seriously if Hassane Amraoui was not notable , i'm first one who ask for delete the article in wikipedia in project Algeria french or another language , believe me and you can check for that in french wiki or english i have story in wikipedia since 2006 ( not reason to keep article i Know that ) , but i think the problem is language and others problem internet in Algerai since 1990 at 2000, but we have the text of Yve Lavo or [59] , the short article, in Devoir, yes but the drawing table is the prix (award) or prize , Why Hassane Amraoui drawing tables ( tableau de peinture) or canavas was the award or the prize, Marie receive it at Montreal ( honour)???? and [60] ( Reporter of news press El Waten at Montreal) and i have that [61] search for article of El Waten or [62] it is my last comment. Thank you very much for your time Bearcat and all users and 1000 sorry for my basic english, we keep or we delete, you decide, but i told keep --Great11 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC) NB Ali Kichou is Notable but when i search in net look that [63] and that [64] he live in Canada too--Great11 (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC) please look at that M'hamed Issiakhem the great and the best painter of Algeria [65] wiki after Youtub and blog --Great11 (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Adel Abdessemed school of art of Batna Aures please look [66] same thing site blog gallery press facebook --Great11 (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this text in net is in french Vues d’Hassane Amraoui

Article publié par Emilie Fondanesche _ Touki Montréal : 27 / 04 /2010

Source

And Yve Salavo blogg is Yvesalavo Yvesalavo [67] biographie of Yve Salavo Yve Salavo --Great11 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great11 you can not post the actual contents of the website here, that's a copyright violation. I cut out all the copy/paste of the actual article, leaving the article's name. Post the link to a website, not the actual story. As for if they support notability, they do not. As Bearcat and I have both stated it needs to be an article about the subject and covered by and independent reliable source. One of the pages is just a routine announcement that Hassane is exhibiting in Montreal (which from what I can gather is the one and only time he's had any of his artwork shown). The other page is about someone else, but mentions Hassane's name. Caffeyw (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok Thank you i delete sorry !--Great11 (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC) You delete it's ok --Great11 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)--Great11 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)--Great11 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC) ok we delete but if i found or you found we can write the article , i edit some articles like that we delete because without independent reliable source ?--Great11 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC) All the article Aïssa Djermouni,Ali Khencheli[reply]

Cherif Merzouki, Abdelkhader Houamel, Hassane Amraoui, Mohamed Demagh,Mohamed Temam, some here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Algerian_painters, etc. i think there is not independent reliable source you can check please before delete Caffeyw Thank you --Great11 (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) we put[reply]

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

Article is short and shows lack of notability ....... ...... August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ..... (User talk:......) , .... August 2013 (UTC)--Great11 (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should waiting because i post in bistro ( wikipedia french ) one question, because for me all articles in visual art are notable ( sources) and discussion or consensus , because many articles in french wiki have the same references. i think we have big problem to resolve for notability. Thank you --Great11 (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for french art Visual [[68]]

in french être représenté dans les collections d'un musée reconnu. avoir réalisé au moins deux expositions personnelles, critiquées ou présentées par des médias nationaux (télévision, radio, presse…).

i add one source arabic language we can see his picture from Newspaper Anasser [69].

from the bistro [70] i think, there is two articles from news papers and we have one book ( short biography) , we can keep the article. In Wikipédia english i don't found the article Wikipédia:Notoriété des arts visuels english language, i think we keep because we have many webs site inline ( news). In the article we change the sources , we can add Anasser, newspapers. we can choise only two news paper and only one book( short biography) to keep article ( Entv Algeria ( tv national of Algeria) present the artist since 1998 but we can't acces inline) and many nes papers Algeria but we can acces to that information inligne Thank you --Great11 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC) if we can acces to this article of El Waten , it will be good the last article but since 2012 we can not acces to 97, 98, 97, 96 [71] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Great11 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC) --Great11 (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)--Great11 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can keeped i found a good source 2012, it have many books and news papers and catalogues of Algeria Tunisa , Paris and Montreal reference of Hassane Amraoui since 1994 to 2012 [72] page 62 and 63--Great11 Thank you (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC) But we need help to edit a good article , and i suppose it's still short --Great11 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete 4 and keep 2. We have concuss to close discussion, I think we have 15 days for talking about sources. we delete. Thank you.--Great11 (talk) 04:24, 27 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. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ekin Tunçay Turan[edit]

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

The biography itself had to be deleted as a copyright violation from the subject's web site. All that's left is a list of performances and translations with no reliable independent sources to show notability or to verify the information. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Instead of deleting the biography, which is taken from the actress's website, why not simply rewrite it to avoid the copyright issue, as I have just done? Moreover, a Google search reveals that there are numerous links to independent sources. I don't read Turkish, so I cannot easily judge whether these include sufficient reliable sources or not. It appears that the actress has a substantial body of work over two decades with Turkey's most important national theatre company, so I would say that the article certainly claims notability. Once a serious effort has been made to see if this person is notable or not, we can make a better judgment as to whether to delete or not. My guess is not. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey —Anne Delong (talk) 06:33, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement the the article may be able to improved rather than deleted. Many sources exit, but I am in the same position of being unable to read them so as to assess their quality. If no sources can be found, then I'd support deletion. However, at this time, there seems to be hope that it can be improved, so I oppose. drewmunn talk 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article may be weakly sourced. We can call for more references. But this does not necessitate deleting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:18, 22 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) 04:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Named set[edit]

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

Removed {{prod}}. Reason there was: "Appears to be nonsense: extremely vague, grandiose claims, unrelated references, lack of reputable sources, lack of citations, etc." I agree with all but "appears to be nonsense". I would add that the difficulty in categorizing the article might be an indication that the subject doesn't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopefully speedy I have no idea what this article is saying. For example, we have the following from the article: "According to Irlam (1995), everything is a naming problem. This implies that names are everywhere and thus, named sets are also everywhere because names exist only in the context of named sets as a name names something or somebody." How's that again?William Jockusch (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be primarily a promotional vehicle for some of the work of M. Burgin, better known for fringy work claiming that Zeno's paradox is somehow a refutation of the Church–Turing thesis (see super-recursive algorithm — note that, unlike the nominated article, this work is clearly notable, but still in my opinion flaky). His "Theory of named sets as a foundational basis for mathematics" has 23 citations in Google scholar, but most of them turn out to be self-citations. As near as I can tell, this is about functions (or possibly more specifically injective functions, I can't tell) dressed up in fancy new names: "support" for "domain", etc. (Note that in standard mathematical usage the support of a function is something different, the subset of the domain in which it is nonzero). What this needs, to make a real encyclopedia article, is a reliable source by someone independent of Burgin clearly describing what new thing this work brings to the table. In the absence of such a source, we don't have a basis for writing an article and in any case I'm skeptical that this passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy. Disclosure: I added the deletion tag to the page. I agree with several of the sentiments expressed so far. The topic of the article appears to be fringe work. It's hard to tell what exactly the theory is about and at least whatever is decipherable from the cited sources doesn't pass the notability criterion. The sources that are presented as Foundations work don't offer new technical insight or offer any clear and unique formal machinery for solving problems or understanding existing problems in novel ways. The lack of rigorous definitions, lemmas, theorems, and other standards of mathematical exposition are problematic. As far as I can tell, most of the material in these sources merely attempts to show (in, at best, a questionable fashion) that almost all mathematical objects are either "named sets" or are closely related to "named sets". The "I've found a new theory underlying everything but that doesn't actually do anything" is usually a sign of nonsense and pseudoscience. There's room for work on naming and related issues and this has been explored fruitfully even in contemporary times by logicians and computer scientists working in the areas of foundations, logical frameworks, and metatheory of formal languages. There's also room for philosophy in mathematics, which has seen a bit of a revival recently with recent developments in category theory and type theory. Unfortunately, this "named sets" material does not seem to offer technical insights into naming or qualify as serious philosophy by any standard I am aware of. 174.126.108.52 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious pseudoscientific twaddle. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:44, 22 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) 04:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table (text only)[edit]

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

Wrapper for a single template only. Then as it states, it is "designed for printing" the information (in black and white). IMO, we do not create separate pages targeted for print. Printing is in the toolbox (wiki page, lefthand menu). When the page is gone, its template is up for deletion too for this reason. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: creator [73], project WP:ELEMENTS [74]. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not necessary. We have printable versions of articles already; why do we need separate pages like this? Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; we don't manually produce separate versions of articles for different types of visual media. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nergaal (talk) 21:02, 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. Secret ^account 01:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Derby (Australia)[edit]

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

No indication that this is actually a rivalry, as opposed to two teams who are obliged to play each other regularly because of the nature of Australian soccer making this look more like WP:CRUFT than a genuine rivalry. Only two of the sources provided mention this game as a derby (and only one as the M1 Derby). There seems to be no events surrounding these games bar the matches themselves that indicate any rivalry worthy of note other than geographical proximity. As Gold Coast United no longer compete in the A-League it seems unlikely that this rivalry could develop beyond this embryonic stage. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry. Giant Snowman 09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, request early close through Snowball Clause. The nominator (who is Russian and clearly has no knowledge of the subject) has blindly nominated several related articles without bothering to discuss the pages (violating the WP:BEFORE rule). His concerns could easily have been sorted if he had taken them to the talk page, and efforts made to improve the article before any deletion request should be considered under the AFD guidelines. A notable geographic rivalry is still a rivalry and as such, his viewpoint that the article is cruft is unfounded, there is no requirement in WP:GNG for any 'incidents' (what sort of incidents? This is utterly subjective weasel wording), the article has several reliable sources and completely passes WP:GNG thus making it an acceptable article. The charge that the article cannot be notable because one of the teams no longer competes would violate WP:NTEMP, which shows that a notable article is notable regardless of timescale. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's nothing to indicate this was a notable rivalry and it's obviously going to be difficult for any future rivalry to generate the significant coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG because one of the teams no longer exists. Stalwart111 12:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per Snowball Clause and WP:NTEMP raised by Macktheknifeau. Ck786 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please show the sources that reliably and in depth cover the rivalry that supposedly exists. Currentyy the article is a |synthesis of match reports. WP:NRIVALRY clearly shows the requirement that WP:GNG is met. So far not a single source has been provided that actially discusses the supposed rivalry. WP:NTEMP only applies after GNG is met and WP:SNOWBALL is irrelevant as there is not unanimous agreement for your point of view. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Article makes distinct reference to the rivalry. Ck786 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, as pointed one team no longer exists, and had only existed for approx 4 years before going away. RS note a "derby" but nothing seems to mention the M1 Derby, making it seem like this is possibly a term only used by a few. Caffeyw (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' - as previously mentioned, the fact that one team does not exist, doesn't mean the article isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.218.26 (talk) 00:45, 28 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. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales derby (A-League)[edit]

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

No indication that this is actually a rivalry, as opposed to two teams who are obliged to play each other regulalry because of the nature of Australian soccer. The one reference provided makes no mention of any notable rivalry between the two clubs. Very little sourced prose making this look more like WP:CRUFT than a genuine rivalry. There seem to be no notable events associated with this "derby" bar the matches themselves other than a dive by one player in one match. Difficult to see how this passes WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry. Giant Snowman 09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No rivalry here at all, not a local derby. It would have been nice to go through WP:BEFORE however. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 10:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 10:55, 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 no consensus. Given the robust participation and discussion involved, I don't think there's a great deal to be gained from relisting. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Derby (A-League)[edit]

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

No indication that this is actually a rivalry, as opposed to two teams who are obliged to play each other regularly because of the nature of Australian soccer. The two teams have only ever played each other three times, making this look more like WP:CRUFT than a genuine rivalry. Maybe a rivalry will develop, but you cant call this a derby / rivalry which passes WP:GNG after only a season and a half, particularly when there seem to be no notable incidents associated with the matches beyond the games themselves. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry. Giant Snowman 09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aren't admins supposed to follow the rules instead of just blindly supporting deletion requests because they have a personal vendetta against the creator of the article? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Request early close via Snowball Clause. This nomination has no merit (the nominator clearly hasn't followed WP:BEFORE) and I wonder why a Russian editor who has no local knowledge has even bothered to nominate the article without discussion. I request an early close (Snowball Clause) as the nominator doesn't appear to have actually read the article, nor has he attempted to discuss the page before his nomination and has instead just nominated every A-League rivalry he could find without attempting to find any consensus or improvement prior to the nominations. If he had done so, any concerns could have been assuaged before he had to go to the lengths of an AFD. His concerns listed and answered:

WP:CRUFT/WP:GNG/No indication this is a rivalry: Perjorative use of cruft implies that the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. This is untrue. There are numerous sources included in the article (signficant coverage), from reliable major news sources that are independent of the subject, and if the author had brought up his issues, I'm certain more sources could have been found to improve the article even further. This is a local derby between two teams from Sydney. As stated in the article, the rivalry is a geographic rivalry between a team from the Eastern Suburbs and one from the Western Suburbs of Sydney.

Only 1 season: I would point the nominator to WP:NTEMP. Just because a subject is new doesn't mean it can be dismissed as non-notable. A rivalry already exists in part because of being a geographic derby rivalry, and the inherent nature of the East vs West divide in Sydney. Additionally, this rivalry has roots beyond this recent season, having existed prior to the introduction of the new team Western Sydney, because people in the West rejected Sydney FC. There were also prior attempts to create a team in Western Sydney that saw the creation of a rivalry between supporters from Sydney FC and the future Wanderers supporters. Again, if the nominator had bothered to discuss his concerns work could have been done to improve the article or help the nominator understand.

No incidents: Again, if he had read the article, he would have seen that Sydney FC prevented Western Sydney from winning the A-League premiership in the 3rd match, that is one notable incident, and if he had dicussed it, I could have seen that no-one had added the incidents in that 3rd match where players from both sides were sent off for violent conduct against the opposition. Additionally, there would also be the ability to introduce sources that discuss incidents between the supporters in regards to the rivalry. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article might be sourced, but the sources merely show that matches were played. They make no real comment regarding any rivalry beyond simply being local teams. There has basically been no change since the last creation of the article. Maybe in time there will be a genuine rivalry which is documented in reliable sources at length. At no point does the article or any of the sources make any significant comment on a wider geographic rivalry and this would be irrelevant in the context of this article as it would not make a football related rivalry inherently notable. Can I also ask that you assume good faith in future rather than claiming nominators useing pejoritive terms and that another editor has a personal vendetta against you. Fenix down (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you bring that up on the talk page before creating the nomination? It is much harder to work under the pressure of an AFD deadline than it is during a typical talk page discussion. There already exists a 'genuine' (what wikipedia guidelines should I go to find exactly what "genuine" means?) rivalry, but don't have the time to work through your half-dozen AFD's along with fixing up the pages in such a short space of time, and clearly someone from Russia has no real place in nominating articles involving an Australian football league they have no knowledge of, without trying to discuss it with people who know the subject. I would suggest you withdraw the nomination and post your issues on the talk page so the issues can be worked through in a productive manner that doesn't include the ticking time bomb of a deletion request. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time in these discussions, I am not Russian. Please also refrain from telling me what I do or do not have knowledge of and what I may or may not involve myself in. I felt there was no need to bring the matter up on the talk page as, given that there have only been three games played between the two sides EVER, that there could not possibly be grounds at the moment for stating that a significant enough rivalry between the two teams has developed to warrant a separate article and the fact that there is essentially no material change in circumstances from the last deletion discussion that there was nothing to be gained from taking it to the talk page. There are, as with many of these Australian "rivalries", little to no sources that reliably and in any detail discuss the actual rivalry. By that I don't mean a bad tackle in one game, a couple of sendings off in another and a separate general geographical rivalry that an editor then synthesises into a rivalry, but a discussion of the actual rivalry itself. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only disagree yet again with your decision not to bring up an issue on the talk page as per the WP:BEFORE rule, but I shall not bring it up any further. I apologise for any offence you felt by remarks about being Russian. There is a significant rivalry between the sides despite only three matches having been played, with the rivalry going back more than just those three matches due to the way the A-League and the sides involved came about (involving supporters from the old club switching allegiance to the new club, issues with the founding of Sydney FC, being part of the wider East vs West rivalry in the city, players switching clubs and things like one manager having played for the other club prior to the introduction of Western Sydney) although the article itself isn't quite up to date or as fully sourced as it should be. The AFD clearly puts pressure on the people involved with the articles to simultaneously defend those articles in the AFD and try to add sources to satisfy whatever 'grounds' you would need to withdraw the nominations, hence my suggestion to withdraw the AFD and leave it on the talk page. Note: The article was a userfied page prior to it's launch, hence why it might look the same since launch. If no-one brings up any concerns about the page (either on the talk page or directly to a major editor on it) before trying to delete the article how can anyone actually fix them? Not everyone has unlimited time to spend on making a wikipedia article perfect. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (post) @ 10:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 10:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable rivalry. I'm a diehard soccer fan and love my A-League (support the mighty Perth Roar) but I can't justify this article's existence. Jevansen (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean Perth Glory. Portillo (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I'm with Jevansen - big A-League fan - but I can't support keeping this at the moment. I actually think this is a matter of WP:TOOSOON. I'm sure this will one day be as big a deal as the Melbourne derby or The F3 Derby with an extensive history, significant incidents and cultural score-keeping. But at the moment it's just a series of routine games with nothing to differentiate them from other games, except for maybe crowd size (but big numbers are not a reason to keep things). Come back in a couple of seasons - someone will likely have written a book about it by then! Stalwart111 11:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG. No evidence of a rivalry discussed by reliable sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now, before anyone accuses me of an anti-soccer bias, I have previously worked hard to kill rivalry articles associated with the AFL. These are no different. Primarily marketing efforts by the leagues involved, hoping to suck in the fans to think the games are somehow more important than they really are. We must not be doing the marketing for these professional bodies. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the derby is hyped-up by marketing efforts from the league, but this is done to all rivalries in sport including that of El Clásico (which is specifically stated in the article). Although that doesn't justify a rivalry, I don't think it diminished the legitimacy of this case. There is a real history of football and rivalry in the city which has transcended beyond marketing.--2nyte (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all such "rivalries" are hyped by the A-League and the associated "derby" games are the same but only a few are actually notable by our standards. The F3 Derby, for example (which I think I've highlighted during deletion discussions for US college football "rivalries"), has been the subject of extensive (national) coverage and much of the coverage has actually focused on the derby itself (history, culture, etc.), not just the rivalry or routine games between the teams. Though geography-specific, games not either on the Central Coast or at Newcastle (like pre-season trial games) are still referred to by the media as "F3 Derby" games. I think that's the level of coverage we should be expecting of other so-called "rivalries" and their "derby" games. I'm sure the Sydney Derby will get there - it's just not there yet. Stalwart111 05:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article chronicles a real Sydney suburban sporting rivalry albeit nascent. Let the article grow I say. I don't understand why it can't be allowed to stay and hopefully improve. Silent Billy (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nobody is questioning whether or not there is a nascent rivalry, what is being discussed here is the fact that there seems to be no real in depth sources that discuss the rivalry, just a load of match reports, from which synthesis has been produced to indicate notability falsely. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is and always has been a strong rivalry between the West and "Central" Sydney. This is evident in these derby matches. Try telling supporters of either team that a "rivalry doesn't exist"... Ck786 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then where are the sources that reliably discuss this rivalry? Nobody, as I have said countless times, is saying a rivalry doesn't exist, merely that it is not (and given that there has only been three games between the two sides cannot) be notable as there are no reliable sources that provide any significant and specific coverage of the rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NRVE suggests that "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." During this AFD process there have been additional sources found, the article explains why this rivalry has been around longer than 'just' the three matches played so far (and also that the rivalry is about more than just the matches) and NVRE also states "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I believe that the article has already shown improvement, editors have found independent reliable sources that 'discuss the rivalry' as requested by the nominator, and as per NVRE, a deletion due to a lack of notability is inappropriate here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above - To clarify, one additional source here has been found that actually discusses the notion of a rivalry between these two teams as opposed to match reports and synthesis. It does make mention of a nascent rivalry, but places it firmly within a larger intra-city rivalry rather than being an in depth discussion of the specific rivalry between these two teams. In my opinion, more sources like this but in more depth need to be found in order to satisfy GNG as required by WP:NRIVALRY. Fenix down (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why does being part of a larger intra-city rivalry diminish the rivalry? To me that strengthens the notability of the article and proves that this article is notable. It's been shown that a rivalry exists, it's been shown that the rivalry existed before the matches begun, it's been shown that the rivalry has it's roots and basis in the larger cultural fabric of the city, and various guidelines like WP:NRVE & WP:WIP suggest that the article should be kept even though it's not perfect, because it is clearly notable and it's notability will improve with time to improve sources and simple time and events this subject references. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Err... because something doesn't have to be of any significant size to be part of something greater. That's just common sense. Anyway, as per WP:NRVE, as you seem so keen to mention random guidelines, please state the reliable sources that discuss the rivalry in detail. This is what I have kept asking you to do and you have failed to provide any other than the one discussed above which is in the context of a wider geographical rivalry. WP:WIP is irrelevant as an essay not a guideline, particularly as this article has been deleted once already due to lack of notability only a short time ago. Also, could you please stop using weasel words in your comments to try to add weight to you argument? The article is not "clearly notable" otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply - Because the existence of a cultural rivalry between the East and West of a large metropolitan area does not mean that all subsequent matches, games or rivalries between teams that happen to be geographically divided by East and West are notable. There are teams from the East and teams from the West in the NSW Super League. That doesn't mean we can justify an article for each combination of East vs. West from that league just because they are potentially "part of a larger intra-city rivalry". What we need, per WP:GNG, is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that talk about the rivalry or derby itself, not vague and potentially related cultural rivalries. In the same way as other things, rivalries don't inherit notability from other rivalries. Stalwart111 11:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This rivalry between the Wanderers and Sydney FC has been well reported in the newspapers in Australia in which the matches between these two are actual rivalry matches and derbys ([75], [76], [77]). However, there is also plenty of sources to suggest that this is more than just a match between two teams. In fact there was fan unrest and hooliganism between the two sets of fans last season ([78], [79], [80]). So I think it is obvious that this is more than just a match between two local sides. In fact it is a major rivalry which both includes the players and the fans going at it. So yes, this page deserves to stay up. There is enough sources and merit to prove that there is a rivalry here between these two. Cheers.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately there are the following issues with the sources you note which are symptomatic of the issues with the article as a whole. the first one specifically mentions that it is only four months since they started playing each other, a rivalry worthy of its own article cannot possibly have developed in that time. The artilce itself does not add anything to the notability of any rivalry anyway as it is merely a brief bit of speculation on what two teams might be feeling. The one quote in the article doesn't mention rivalry at all. the second one is of even less use as it is a match report and like many of the sources, it does not discuss the rivalry in any way in any depth but is used to synthesise a rivalry. the third source is of no use whatsoever, as it is premptive article discussing the prospect of a rivalry (and only briefly at that before the teams had even played). the fourth source is very brief, hardly in depth, does not discuss rivalry between the two sides, just a small bit of unpleasant behaviour, the type of which happens between fans of most teams at some point. The fifth source is not a reliable source as it is essentially an interview with the head of a group of fans of Sydney Wanderers and indeed talks more about the group of fans that it does to any significant length about rivalry between the two clubs. The final source appears to be about exactly the same minor event as the fourth source and so does not add to any GNG case. There still is a significant lack of sources being presented that discuss the rivalry that supposedly exists between the two clubs. Everything presented is barely above trivial and the reason for that is that this is a pair of clubs that have met a grand total of three times. Undoubtedly there is a good chance that a genuine, and reliably documented rivalry will develop, but this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Your right. I just tried looking at a bunch of other pages about rivalries like the Tottenham-Arsenal one, all the way to the Red Bulls-DC United one. Makes sense. Currently there is not enough information to show that this deserves a stand-alone article. However, I do feel that this could be a "searchable rivalry" so instead of making it 1 page itself, lets merge it into A-League and create a section for different, sourced rivalries. Once this gets old enough and intense, then we can add the article. So ya, I switch to Merge with A-League. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I actually think that this is a good idea as long as any merge was managed in terms of length. There seems to be little doubt, given the youthful nature of almost all the rivalries, it is difficult to see how they are individually notable. However, there does seem to be nascent rivalries in a number of places and a genuine effort to hype non-existent rivalries as part of their business plan. Until there are significant reliable sources that actually discuss the rivalry, this would probably be the best place for such content. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually there is already a section for this here so I think all we need to do is just de-link the unnotable rivalries. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what none of the keep crowd has managed to explain is what has changed since this was deleted by clear community consensus last year. It was deleted but userfied and a non-admin moved it back into mainspace within a couple of months having determined, "it is now notable enough". That's not really how WP is supposed to work and it was done with a distinct lack of a formal submission or WP:DRV process. Consensus can change, of course, but nobody has bothered to explain that it has or how and it ends up looking very much like people are trying to "game" the system. Stalwart111 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! I did not even notice that this was the 2nd nomination. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The various Australian sport projects take a very inclusionist approach to notability for rivalries. Taking a look at Sydney_Derby_(AFL) or QClash for example, those pages are even less sourced, and the 'rivalries' are completely synthetic and manufactured marketing gimmicks for sports that aren't popular in those cities involving a team in each that have only existed for a few seasons, with no notable sources to speak off (the AFL Sydney Derby page even says that it doesn't measure up to other rivalries), and the games are blowouts in favour of one team. I wasn't involved with bringing the page back (although it was on my user page) and I had assumed an actual admin had done it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF makes no difference to this discussion. Perhaps they will be nominated in the same way at some point. Fenix down (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted reasons, I gave them to you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the "non-admin" who moved the article back into mainspace after recreation almost a year ago, the reason given in the previous "delete" decision was "The arguments for deletion that the article is premature as the potential match has not happened, that the matches between the 2 teams may not be a significant rivalry and that the coverage is not significant enough to establish the notability of the topic, are persuasive". [my emphasis added] I moved it back AFTER the "potential match" had happened and I saw that IMO there was sufficient coverage. Which is why I'm voting keep now. No "gaming" of the system was involved, and as an experienced editor, I find that accusation a bit offensive. I did the move to show the article creator that there wasn't any AFL v A-League bias and as a gesture of respect and reconciliation. This doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, a WP:Battleground. The-Pope (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't meant to be offensive - it was meant to prompt those who have supported keeping this to explain why we should be ignoring previous consensus and overturning that decision. That's what needs to be understood here - this has already been deleted. One game does not a "derby" (multiples of the same game) make, and there seems to be agreement (even from the keep crowd) that there is a distinct lack of significant coverage (their argument, instead, being that this rivalry should be allowed to inherit an existing city-wide rivalry). Consensus had been determined. Rather than challenging that consensus or the close itself, the article was simply recreated. In fact, there were five fairly minor edits between userfication and recreation and it would probably have qualified, at that stage, for speedy deletion as the recreation of a AFD-deleted article. Now I've recreated previously deleted articles before, don't get me wrong, but the issue here is that we're back at AFD discussing the same issues; talking about the same lack of coverage. If this were at DRV the closure and deletion would likely be endorsed. So why shouldn't we just be calling for this to be speedy closed? Stalwart111 06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first reason given for deletion is no longer valid, the 2nd and 3rd are up for debate, that's why. Who's to know if all 3 reasons were equal in the closer's reasoning, or was the first one the primary reason? The article wasn't technically recreated, it was userfied (by the deletor) and then re-moved by me. The-Pope (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Technically", the first reason for deletion was, "there is a clear consensus for deletion here". I don't think you'll get far with your "article wasn't technically recreated" - of course it was. It was userfied without a redirect (deleted), which was the result of the AFD, and an almost identical article was moved to that title a couple of months later. If anything, its an even more blatant style of recreation because you simply moved the old content back to the same title with little-to-no improvement, effectively reverting the AFD result. If you want to test the closer's reasoning or the technicality of the deletion, take it to DRV. It might have been done in good faith, but it was bad process. Stalwart111 23:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well noted rivalry in Australia. It seems this surpasses notability guidelines (BigSoc (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

So where are the sources. QUite few people have made this point, but not one has been able to show significant reliable sources that discuss the rivalry in depth. Fenix down (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is your responsibility. A few of these should do, let alone any from SBS, ABC or News Corp sources. The-Pope (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, we have evidence (from only one major newspaper) of anticipation of the derby being created, comparison to other derbies worldwide, tickets selling out in minutes: "The cross-town rivalry has already emerged as one of Australian football's hottest tickets" and more anticipation of the event: "This is the derby, and how we have waited for this moment...this game was the one thing we looked forward to more than anything else." It's a rivalry, it's an event, it's got significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the first source is from before both the teams even existed, it is a purely speculative article about how great it would be to have a rivalry, it does not discuss the rivalry in any depth, because it could not possibly exist at the time! The second source is not a reliable source, it is interviews with players involved hyping up the match. This source is about a game selling out, this shows only that this game was popular, the article does not discuss the rivalry that supposedly exists between the two sides to any degree, simply that two teams based near each other sold out a game. This happens all the time and does not indicate a rivalry in itself. The final source is again as you say, anticipatory, it does not inherently discuss that a rivalry exists between the two teams as they hadn't even played each other at this point. For the record, this is what a substantial, reliable article, that actually discusses a genuine rivalry between two teams looks like. There is simply nothing like this for this rivalry because it simply doesn't exist to any degree that would satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Close to Keep Article: Can this be closed now? There is clearly no consensus (an even 50/50 split between keep and delete), the article has already been massively improved in such a short period of time. The argument in favour of deletion isn't strong, and only exists because the nominator failed to follow the WP:BEFORE rule. This debate gone on long enough, I request a close and for this article to be protected from future unwarranted AFD debates. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count votes. Quality of argument is what counts. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes are a simple representation of consensus, and a 50/50 split is pretty obviously a representation of non-consensus. Not to mention the poor arguments and failure to follow basic guidelines like WP:BEFORE. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes don't count, and your comments such as "poor arguments" are inherently pov. WP:BEFORE doesn't count here as this is a second nomination after a deletion when nothing has been perceived to have changed materially. There have been discussions on both sides and opinions made clear, if you want a decision to be made might I suggest that you stop posting, particularly when all you are doing now is making pov comments regarding how weak / strong the different sides of the argument are, which it is not your job to do. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macktheknifeau - you came to my Talk page to play silly bugger games on this. Seemingly on the basis that, as you accused many in the Soccer in Australia discussion, you think anyone who disagrees with you is biased towards AFL and against the A-League, you asked if I thought Sydney Derby_AFL should be deleted. I agreed with you that it should. I think that surprised you, and you stopped bothering me there. But this demonstrates that your approach is not one of looking at the quality of argument, but all about thinking that everyone is commenting here on the basis of biases. Your comments after losing your argument at Soccer in Australia, insisting that it was decided on the basis of you being swamped by AFL supporters, support this view. It's time for you to grow up, look a little more widely at discussions on Wikipedia (there's a lot of articles about many other things than soccer and Aussie Rules), and think about the quality of YOUR argument. Keeping nonsensical articles does NOT make soccer stronger in Australia. It just makes its fans look silly, and, if anything, probably damages the game. So no, we DON'T count votes. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 30 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. Secret ^account 01:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cross Border Rivalry[edit]

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

No indication that this is actually a rivalry, as opposed to two teams who are obliged to play each other regulalry because of the nature of Australian soccer. The one reference provided makes no mention of any notable rivalry between the two clubs. Very little sourced prose and the unsourced prose consists of a lot of pov and peacock terms making this look more like WP:CRUFT than a genuine rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry. Giant Snowman 09:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Sources need improving & perhaps a rename. Firstly, the nominator failed to follow the WP:BEFORE rule, and thus nominated the article without any chance for anyone to improve the page or to discuss the problems. Secondly, this rivalry is actually one of the most intense in the league and would clearly pass WP:GNG if sources were correctly added to the article. There is a long history of animosity between the two clubs, there have been heated incidents between not just the players, but also between staff & players on both sides, and this rivalry has included several major matches like Grand Finals. There has also been violence between supporter groups and calls from police authorities for calm before matches. I think the core problem here is the name. The "Cross Border Rivalry" is too generic a name for this topic, and has been applied to other rivalries in other sports like Rugby League. Keep, send it back for a rename debate and better sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NRVE suggests that "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." NVRE also states "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I believe based on WP:NRVE that a deletion due to a lack of notability is inappropriate here. As explained above, I strongly believe this article is notable, and that there is significant coverage that just isn't used in the article at the moment. When the police have released a statement saying "There’s certainly a fierce rivalry between Adelaide United and Melbourne Victory supporters", then it follows there will be significant coverage in reliable sources. Keep via WP:NRVE. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (post) @ 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete there is no significant coverage of this term being applied to these football teams. see trove search [81]. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As discussed above, this article is badly named. However, wikipedia doesn't delete articles because they are badly named. We move them. Trove search is an extremely poor way to find sources for specialist sports topics like this, especially when dealing with a poor name as the basis for the search. Your search was never going to find anything under the current name, that's not a reason to delete the article however. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my vote stands. there is no significant coverage of this rivalry. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mack, if it is a simple case of moving the article to its correct name, please state what this name should be and show sources covering the rivalry specifically in a reliable and significant manner as required by WP:NRIVALRY. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have a nickname so something basic like Adelaide-Melbourne Victory A-League Rivalry. A simple google search brings up sources that I believe are perfectly acceptable under both WP:NRIVALRY & WP:NRVE. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like what?!?, There are 646,000 results from that, all you need to do is provide links to specific, reliable sources that discuss the rivalry in detail, not match summaries that mention the word derby or something like that from which you synthesise an article. To be honest, I am finding it very difficult to understand why and how you can't do this if the rivalries are as notable as you claim as it would be the easiest and most definitive way to establish notability. Just saying "google adelaide melbourne victory rivalry" accomplishes nothing. If you do that for any player you will get hundreds of results, many of which entirely irrelevant or unreliable, but we don't accept that as proof of GNG for every non-notable player, why should we for this rivalry? Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS does not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 24 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.

Should not have been deleted. Anyone who feels that this is not a rivalry needs to get their eyes checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.184.244 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryboy (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeal Wellness Drink[edit]

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

Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is one instance where the request for undeletion should probably have been denied, considering that the rationale was "it's useful". There's a clear lack of notability here and this is a pretty obvious spam article. The sources on the article are mostly links that discuss the various things that are in the drink and wouldn't show notability for the drink itself. The rest of the links are either primary sources (such as the PR posted on Yahoo) or links to sites that wouldn't be considered to be RS, let alone usable as a trivial source. I'd recommend a speedy again as sheer spam, but this has already been undeleted once and should probably go through a full AfD so that way it can stay deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, clearly promotional, and very poorly done. I could add lots of tags, but why bother, if we agree on deletion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything substantial on this product, Zurvita Inc (which, oddly enough, also seem to deal in deregulated energy markets), or this particular Mark Jarvis. Lots of blogspam, but nothing reliable. Having the article suggest, without any sources, that the product might be a health-hazard is really strange. I don't see anything worth saving here. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The writer had good intentions but Wikipedia is not the correct venue for publishing one's research essays on the effectiveness of a product's ingredients.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:19, 24 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) 04:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great American Western[edit]

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

Unnotable DVD series. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (barney) @ 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (converse) @ 10:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the title, I thought this was a train or bus company! Borderline speedy for an advert that doesn't establish notability. Yet. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a collection of otherwise notable western films which, while most have independent notability, have no sourcable notability as a multi-volume collection. All this might merit is a mention in the Platinum Disc Corporation as one of the many compilations they have done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:34, 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. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Hancock[edit]

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

Fails the notability requirement for entertainers. An actor with a string of very minor roles with no apparent large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Neither has he made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found it a little difficult to search for sources since the name is rather common, but there's no evidence of coverage for Hancock as an actor under news or books, and as the nom states, the listed roles do not confer notability for actors. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 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} 00:48, 13 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:10, 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. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Tsang[edit]

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

simply being a mayor of a small municpality does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. his crimes whilst well reported does not meet WP:CRIMINAL. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 13 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought about this one for a long time. The article itself, of course, is an utter mess, self-contradictory, overloaded and severely outdated. The vast majority of material I could find was relating to this one scandal, and as such I think Tsang fails WP:1E in addition to the nominator's rationale. The article claims that Tsang was leader of the Unity Party but I have not been able to find evidence of this (perhaps they mean leader on Strathfield Council? In which case so what). If such evidence was found, I might reconsider as Unity had an MP at the time; however, it's more than likely that even so Tsang still doesn't pass. Frickeg (talk) 12:21, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Space (website)[edit]

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

The article describes a website with little demonstrable notability. I was able to find an article in the Huffington Post using Google News, but the article itself only mentions the website in passing. This was all I was able to find. Checking the edit history, user:sacredspace.ie appears to have made a few edits, but these appear to be minor, so this may outrule COI. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user:sacredspace.ie has been blocked as of some time ago. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 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) 02:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-known and established website, and among the first to explore the use of web technology in this way. A variety of websites (parishes, educational institutions, and others) post links to it for their respective constituencies. It is apparently accessed by thousands of people a day, (presumably more during Advent and Lent) from many countries, and is available in a number of languages.Mannanan51 (talk) 04:47, 19 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the coverage already on the page is O'Sullivan, Roddy (1 March 2000), "Irish Jesuits get into spirit of the Internet.", Irish Times. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin DavidEllis simply votes the same at mulitple AfDs . eg [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the reliable sources both already in the article and as identified by duffbeerforme to constitute adequate evidence of notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:59, 27 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 no consensus. L Faraone 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Imber[edit]

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

Highly promotional article for borderline notable physician. sourced mainly to promotional interviews he has given. Possibility of notability as an author, but the article would need to be entirely rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 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) 02:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a borderline notable physician per the sources in the article. I could care less if the article needs to be rewritten. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only minimal impact in citation databases. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:36, 18 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation, the current way it is written is suspect due to the paid editing stuff. --Rs chen 7754 09:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubbify. The article is highly promotional but I think coverage of Imber in the New York Times, Independent, etc. make him sufficiently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 27 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) 04:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Cuts Neighbors[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Dea db eef 10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 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) 02:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the single source already cited in the article, I can't seem to find any other reliable sources with information on this band. T C N7JM 10:24, 13 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps something exists offline, but I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 16:34, 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. Secret ^account 02:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GET REAL![edit]

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

This article does not pass the notability guideline for albums. It only includes a track listing, and all of the "references" are music videos from the track listing. None of the information in the infobox is actually sourced, and I couldn't find a source for it. T C N7JM 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you won't delete it? This album is THE ONE, which made Math the band famous at all:) So I didn't create separate articles for other albums! Just for this one. For 13 songs were shot music videos. It's almost record. Only the album Elect the Dead by Serj Tankian has videos for every song). So, I think, this album shouldn't be deleted or redirected. I promise not to create articles about other albums by Math the band, but this one should be here. --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This will need more than just a tracklisting to remain as a standalone article. There are a few sources that could be used to expand it a little, e.g. [88], [89], [90], [91], but I'm not convinced that there's enough. Probably better to cover within the band article. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Michig. Can you advice something instead of deletion or simple redirect? I have created similar articles, but they were calmly removed or redirected by other users (so article was empty just with redirect and all text was deleted). I'm just very sorry my work and efforts, which I spent to create this article and include the template, upload photo (albumcover), to find all the music videos on YouTube, and to insert references for them. So I'd like to find some "golden middle". --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious alternative to deletion and redirection is a merge. There isn't much here other than a tracklist and links to YouTube videos - the former could be incorporated into a discography. I don't think the latter are really appropriate here. Since the article on the band is extremely short at present, expanding the prose there using the available sources would be best. --Michig (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mixed the "Get Real!" with Math The Band and made redirect to "albums". Please, check it and tell me if you can leave the article in such state, as I've just done? With respect --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

To be honest, it doesn't look good. Content shouldn't be collapsed like that and there's no justification for a separate section and infobox just for a tracklisting, and the videos list is now duplicated for no apparent reason other than to get lots of youtube links into the article. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity=( I thought the number of videos is almost record. Like Serj Tankian had shot videos for every song from his album) May be I'm wrong. If I add description for the music videos, will it help in this situation? --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The article isn't supposed to be about the music videos, it's supposed to be providing sourced, notable information about the album itself. T C N7JM 17:40, 12 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) 02:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 13 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete in its present form. Sourced entirely to the band's website and YouTube? Get real. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 27 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 no consensus. L Faraone 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyeria[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability of the subject of the article. Most of the sources given are blogs and this contravenes Wikipedia:Verifiability Collins719 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 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) 02:31, 13 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he has collaborated with Camp Mulla [92][93] and other notable Nigerian musicians [94][95], which suggests he might be notable, but I admit that I can't find any substantial and independent information about him and his activities. Niaje.com, a Kenyan entertainment news website, calls him "one of the top ranking producers in the country", but I'm not sure how notable and reliable the website is. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:58, 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 no consensus. L Faraone 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James McGibney[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Some of his websites might be noteworthy, but he's really only gotten press because of those sites and his legal conflicts, not much of anything reliable exists about him. Going deletion instead of merge due to the lack of a relevant target. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 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) 02:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern. However, perhaps the validity of McGibney's entry should not be based on his entrepreneurship per se but the legal case with Hunter Moore (who has an entry btw). It was the first case involving defamation via Twitter. Arguably, this case could very well be precedent setting. ^[1]. Admittedly, I am not nearly as experienced as most contributors, but doesn't this constitute making McGibney "notable"? or at the very least, his "action" is "notable" right? With respect, I am an offering an alternative view I see as pretty legit. Thanks for reading. TheYamMan (talk)

References[edit]

^ http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416476,00.asp

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with TheYamMan, the legal case between Moore and McGibney was noted by notable media such as BBC. The page could be renamed or merged but it shouldn't be deleted. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like another notable legal issue. Can web sites like FB be liable for comments posted by users? Looks like they can if Web site helped users "create" the content. Where's the line? A Federal lawsuit has been filed. Covered by legal anchor Dan Abrams for Good Morning America.^[1].TheYamMan (talk)

References[edit]

^ http://gma.yahoo.com/video/california-couple-files-lawsuit-over-130731608.html

Sorry, I'm back. I just found this too. It's basically saying that McGibney went after TV personality Kate Gosselin's online bullies. Not sure how McGibney got the info on the perps though.^[1]. Also, not sure if that makes it notable on its own. Yet, now Gosselin is suing her ex Jon Gosselin and writer Robert Hoffman apparently, at least based in part, on a series of text messages McGibney posted on Bullyville.com.^[2]. Again, not sure if this constitutes notable legal action, but doesn't seem like everyday legal jousting either. McGibney seems to be at the center of several high-profile legal questions when it comes to Internet privacy and liability. Not sure if it's a crusade or what, but I don't think this activity will fade. I also don't see anyone else really doing this sort of thing. TheYamMan (talk)

References[edit]

^ http://articles.mcall.com/2013-04-04/entertainment/mc-kate-gosselin-bullyville-20130404_1_kate-gosselin-jon-kate-class-action-lawsuit
^ http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/08/kate-gosselin-wiretapping-lawsuit-ex-husband-jon-gosselin-book-author-robert-hoffman/

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) 04:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Roseland Ballroom, NYC[edit]

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

Quick Google search doesn't show any WP:RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was moved prior to the nomination. Strangely, Twinkle used the old names for the nomination, however linked to the new name in the notice at the top of the article. I have moved this AfD nomination to the new name and reformatted the nomination. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:12, 6 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 6. Snotbot t • c » 21:14, 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) 02:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick Google search with the title in quotations found notability. Blu-ray.com, Allmusic (already in the article), and Blogcritics (a reliable source despite the name). SL93 (talk) 01:30, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added two more sources to the article: [96][97]. These plus the other sources identified should be enough to squeak past WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 17:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Gongshow. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin DavidEllis simply votes the same at mulitple AfDs . eg [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Gongshow notes, this subject has been covered by many reliable sources. This constitutes adequate evidence of notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 27 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. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Darts Federation[edit]

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

There seems to be absolutely no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources pertaining to this entity; witness a search in English and two in Romanian. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's self-published "coverage" on Facebook and the like, but nothing in reliable sources that I could find. One thing to note; what is available seems to reference "Federaţia de Darts din România" (English: Federation of Darts in Romania) rather than the article title. But Biruitorul took care of that with his second search and even that didn't bring up anything for me. Stalwart111 06:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 13 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:39, 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 keep. Secret ^account 02:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Bremner[edit]

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

DeleteNot notable...Self written article...Do we allow every teacher with self published books at every University to have an article about themselves? It is articles like this that literally undermine the very fabric of the Encyclopedia. Finkellium (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth do you mean with "self-published books"? His books were published by some of the most reputed publishers (Wiley, Penguin, etc.) Not a single one of his books appears to be "self-published". Sorry, but that remark is plain ridiculous. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - You want to be on the list, following me around then? Go look up his latest books, kindle specials, like ten copies sold. PLease.Finkellium (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what list you're talking about. As for following you around (I assume you are referring to the fact that I edited the Alice Crimmins article, where your additions have now been removed by multiple editors), it is quite normal to check the contributions of a user who displays some level of incompetence. As for Bremner, who is the subject of this discussion, it seems to me that you have no idea what "self-published" means. To have publishers like Wiley and Penguin agree to publish your book, you need to do a lot more than just write the book: you will have to go through an extensive review process and having them accept your book proposal is a major accomplishment for an academic. It's nothing like sending your manuscript to one of those vanity publishers and paying them to publish your book for you. And although I'm an old fart who thoroughly dislikes ebooks, I don't see what's wrong with having Kindle versions of a book. And where do you get the "ten copies sold" information from? I don't think that Wiley or Penguin have ever published a book that did not at least sell several hundred copies. As you say indeed: Please! --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Being an autobio is not a reason for deletion, at most a reason to rewrite an article in a neutral way, if necessary. Given Bremner's stature, the article is remarkably neutral. Let me just give some citation statistics from Web of Science: 238 publications listed, cited 14885 times, with an h-index of 65. Top 5 citation counts: 1290, 791, 731, 556, and 350. Just one of those is normally enough here for a "keep" decision. Article certainly needs cleanup and expansion, but Bremner passes WP:ACADEMIC without any possible doubt. As a note to the nom, please read WP:BEFORE and research nominations better before bringing them to AfD. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A user called "user:Dougbremner" has made dozens of edits to this page in 2011, but did not start the article originally. Another editor raised this concern to the user: User_talk:Dougbremner. A potential COI certainly, but this appears to be historical since there has been a previous COI noticeboard discussion. There is no real grounds to delete the page, per RandyKitty's searches, notability does not seem to be an issue. Lesion (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Complementing Randykitty's results, the citation counts in Google scholar [104] are well above the threshold for WP:PROF#C1. He apparently has staked out some controversial positions online [105] and in his popular-press writing. Perhaps our article should find some reliably published criticism to include for balance, rather than just reporting uncritically on this material as it does now, but I don't see this as being a problem that deletion is appropriate for. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG. The references at the article include significant coverage in one NYT article, and minor coverage in articles from NYT and CNN. Google News provides other sources. The rest of the references in the article are more or less worthless, but he does appear to be a go-to guy for the media in the areas he writes about. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 26 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. Appears to be a copy of [106], to add to the marginal majority in favour of deletion Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dashgyn Gulmammadov[edit]

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

The article does not seem fit for Wikipedia for the following reasons:

The person whom the article is dedicated to overall does not appear to be very notable.
With the exception of the lead, the article is not sourced at all. However, it makes pretty bold statements with regard to this person's political activity, which may very well be exaggerated, like claiming him to be a 'democracy activist', which a sample check revealed not to be supported by any reliable sources.
The fact that the article has mainly been edited by one user who has not contributed to any other articles on Wikipedia since his/her registration, and also the fact that articles about this person were created en masse in other languages around the same time by the same user, albeit consisting of one or two sentences each, suggest that this may be a case of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Parishan (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many Islamic Turks were expelled from Georgia and resettled in Azerbaijani by the Soviets, including ethnic cleansing. Dashgyn is an Georgian/Azerbaijani Turk who has held many political positions within that community but it's difficult to gauge the importance of these groups without local knowledge. However he was founder and President of the Georgian Azerbaijanis National Assembly from 2002 to 2011, as confirmed here, here, here, and so on; the organization appears to be a significant representative of the Georgian/Azerbaijani Turks. Dashgyn would pass WP:POLITICIAN #1 and/or #2. It's a good catch on the nom's part, but not concerned about WP:COI, if there is specific content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia it should be removed, but the existential question if we should have an article on this person I believe would be keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no real importance. Just a self-commercialized article. GEORGIANJORJADZE 13:19, 24 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:51, 28 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, L Faraone 23:28, 28 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) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffins Corner, New Jersey[edit]

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

This is a non-notable place; there are mentions of it online, but none of the sites are reliable sources. In addition, while Wikipedia is a gazetteer, there are no policies or guidelines outlining what we are to do with articles like this one. It has been stated that AfD trends have supported allowing these kinds of articles; AfDs are not policies. In this case, Coffins Corner fails the standard WP:N policy. An article need not exist for every place where there is a house. Legally-recognized places and unincorporated townships mentioned in reliable sources are another matter. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Above and beyond the source from the Geographic Names Information System, and the additional sources available to be added available online and the general consensus that articles for populated places are inherently notable, as well as the fact that these articles have been regularly expanded beyond stubs, I guess we could've waited more than seven minutes to start an AfD. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did check for any mention of the location. No reliable sources can be found to substantiate the description of Coffins Corner. General notability guidelines apply to all articles; unfortunately (I'm not being facetious, I think it's problematic) there are no clear-cut, specific notability guidelines exempting these kinds of pages. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGEO - legally-recognized, populated place. GNIS is a reliable source and as such is enough to verify its existence. Ansh6 6 6 04:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to withdraw the nom if necessary so we don't get deadlocked here, and it seems that consensus is "keep". At the same time, I really do not think these kind of articles have much encyclopedic value. I think it would be great if there were some sort of notability guideline regarding this; I could live with a guideline allowing any and all GNIS-identified places, but would rather have a concrete policy rather than AfD trends. I've seen similar AfDs on similar articles; I definitely don't want this to cause any issues between contributors, and think that establishing a guideline might be a good idea. It looks as if a failed attempt to create one was made in the past. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GNIS is a reliable source, and as the others have mentioned, there's a long-standing consensus at AfD that populated places are always notable, since Wikipedia serves as a gazetteer. While nobody's codified this in a policy, that doesn't mean we have to reopen discussion on something that's been discussed many times at AfD and almost always ends in a keep vote. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:34, 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Ochoa Foster[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, advertising The Banner talk 02:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added slightly more information about the subject's pre-1996 life and several references. Some of these references might be argued as relating more to her husband than the subject and hence fall under WP:NOTINHERITED; I think there is just about enough here to indicate individual notability though (in particular Deyan Sudjic's piece from The Observer). AllyD (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And no sooner is information added and referenced than it is deleted by an IP. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Since there are IPs and new users popping up to repeatedly delete referenced text from this article every time it is added, I'll note here the 3 main references that are being deleted: Daily Mail, 1996 (via Questia, subscription reqd), Deyan Sudjic in The Observer, 2006, Apollo, 2011 (via Highbeam, subscription reqd). AllyD (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_____ I think that the references and the changes AllyD made to the site are related more to her husband and their relationship than to her professional career and Ivorypress. Therefore I think they should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPSpain (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — IPSpain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, IPSpain. The page in question is a page on the subject, not on Ivorypress (though it does contain a lot of information on Ivorypress publications, which should probably be pruned through normal editing). This is a biographical article and as such requires referenced biographical information; one does not delete references from Wikipedia. AllyD (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG multiple reliable sources discuss the topic in depth. Additional sources:
- Richard Cork, "The Ivory Tower", The Times (United Kingdom), Feb 21, 2004. Biographical piece about Elena Ochoa Foster
- Christine Murray, "Christine Murray interviews Elena Ochoa Foster at the opening of V&A's Blood on Paper", Architects' Journal. 227.17 (May 1, 2008): p52-53. Gale Document Number: GALE|A179953939
- "Lady Foster follows her art", Daily Telegraph, Oct. 21, 2003. Gale Document Number: GALE|A109048067. Brief piece about Elena Ochoa Foster.
- Tunku Varadarajan, "Norman conquest of Dr Sex; Opinion." The Times, 19 June 1996: 19. Gale Document Number: GALE|A115085544. Biographical piece about Elena Ochoa Foster.

These were found in commercial databases (mostly Gale Infotrac Newsstand). If you would like a copy to verify or to expand the article, please request at WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the sources listed above I'm finding a lot of Spanish-language press about her; e.g. [107] [108] [109] (all reporting on her winning the Montblanc Prize in 2010); [110] [111] [112]. And of course the language of the sources is not relevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, by now the article is sourced. Remains the problem of advertising for "Ivory Press". How to deal with that? Axe it or split it off to another article? The Banner talk 11:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing advertising for Ivory Press. As an artist she lists her exhibitions, which is normal, for artists its like a list of books published. They happen to all be at Ivory Press, like some books are published by the same publisher. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proper term for that is self-published books. The Banner talk 21:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We list works, self published or otherwise, if the article topic is considered notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG, per sources presented by Green Cardamom. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 25 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 Wine dispenser--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enomatic wine dispenser[edit]

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

Appears to fail the notability requirement. Most of the sources are ~~internal Wikipedia resources or~~ commercial websites. I don't think an NSF certification or patent count towards notability either. Some Googling brings up a few mentions in periodicals. Also, the article is very nearly an orphan. PierceG (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have removed the internal Wiki references, as they pointed to nonexistent or deleted PDF files. What remains are commercial sites, press releases, and cert/patent documents, which do not constitute coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article on the broader subject of wine dispensers? Certainly those are notable. Perhaps just redirect there? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have wine dispenser but it's just a stub at the moment that could use expansion. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wine dispenser. If any of the content is sourced reliably it can be merged. Broader subject is notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:39, 23 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) 04:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Compassion Ministries[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing of note in gBooks, no news coverage in gNews, no indication there are unaffiliated RSs sufficient to establish notability. Novaseminary (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. There are no reliable, secondary sources about the topic I could find either, and all of the sources cited here are primary. The article is a definite speedy deletion meet per A7. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 03:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wholly self-sourced and largely promotional. Cursory google search turns up nothing counting towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 25 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. If it can't be verified, no article, no merging., however note the SOFTDELETE link. Secret ^account 02:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jama Masjid, Sillod[edit]

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

No significant improvement since PROD; same issues. Elvey (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding anything on this place, save Wikipedia mirrors. Seems to fail WP:GNG without a doubt. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to location as lacking reliable independent sources with in-depth coverage. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 19 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, L Faraone 01:27, 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 no consensus. Secret ^account 02:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Shafer[edit]

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

Doesn't seem like a very notable person. It seems like this page is being used as spam for Jeremy Shafer's YouTube channel. Andrewpmk | Talk 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There doesn't seem to be much significant coverage about him. It doesn't help that the article has only been worked on by IPs and SPAs (including the creator, who hasn't been on Wikipedia in over two years). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much says he is non-notable. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep My first reaction was "get real," and I was all set to delete it. And my first Google News search turned up only other people with similar names. But refining the search I found quite a few items at Google News. I have added several references to the (previously uncited) article; there were others behind paywalls. I think he may be notable enough for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In the world of origami, which most people don't really know much about in the first place, Jeremy Shafer is brilliant. He comes up with new designs about every other week, and figured out how to make Akira Yoshizawa's self-portrait just by looking at a picture of it (there are no diagrams). He has also published books and diagrams. I agree that this article can be improved, but it certainly should not be deleted. Thanks for any consideration of my input. Ensignricky (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeremy Shafer is the top of his field; just because it is a fairly uncelebrated field doesn't mean it's unimportant or useless. Much like our pages on chess champs such as Garry Kasparov, he's a well-known figure in origami, and has plenty of fans and followers. If that doesn't make him "important" or "enough of a celebrity", then Wikipedia is denying its users the right of knowledge, which is the reason they come here in the first place. This page does require some development, but deletion is the last thing it needs. Vulpa 13:19, 27 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. Secret ^account 02:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Gérvas[edit]

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

This is a promotional article. This doctor has no relevant research or career beyond a regular medical practitioning. Now he has published a book and he or some related person is trying to promote him in wikipedia in several languages. Fjsalguero (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should an admin delete the article or may I mark it for speedy deletion by myself?--Fjsalguero (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your speedy deletion, as this debate was never listed at WP:AFD. So I'm going to relist it and start the seven days. At the end of that seven days, if there's consensus to delete, it'll be deleted. No one contested the deletion because no one saw it - that's why we have the AFD list. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:31, 12 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubbify Weak notability per 1, 2, 3, 4. Dea db eef 23:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Cites on GS probably satisfy WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails notability. Lacks any references, and appears to be nothing more then a resume/CV for a doctor. Caffeyw (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I proposed the deletion because, as Caffeyw pointed, it's nothing more than a CV. Gervas is now promoting himself as a book writer and as conferencer, that's why he had some interviews in some blogs and newspaper. I don't think wikipedia should be used to promote himself. The article was writen by a collaborator of Gervas.--Fjsalguero (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're already listed as recommending delete because you were the original nominator. I've struck the notation just to avoid confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't sure if I had to vote independently or not.--Fjsalguero (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:04, 21 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, L Faraone 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: No comments since the second relisting.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fjsalguero (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced article without a claim of notability. Google scholar citations are not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. Media material by him (e.g. interviews) does not make up for the lack of material about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 27 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) 04:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vincenzo Castellano[edit]

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

Appears to be thoroughly insignificant from the perspective of a worldwide encyclopedia. He's the head of a unit connected with the Hospital for Special Surgery; if that's the biggest thing you've done, you almost certainly don't pass the notability bar. So he appears on some webpages from the website of his employer — what a surprise! There's no evidence of in-depth coverage from reliable sources independent of him, and a couple of papers don't make him notable as an academic. 2001:18E8:2:1020:5C69:D059:29BC:F807 (talk) 16:53, 13 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 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure he is a fine physician, but he does not meet Wikipedia's rather demanding criteria for an article at this time. Google News finds nothing so he does not pass WP:GNG. He is an assistant professor at Cornell and director of a division of a reasonably notable hospital; Google Scholar shows him as a co-author on some modestly cited papers; that's not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC. He is young and he might become more notable in the future, but not yet. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MelanieN. NN BLPs are trouble. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MelanieN?! Isn't that a bit severe for lvoting? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I suspect he meant to say "delete PER MelanieN", but I'll watch my back! --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references in the article that are independent of the subject and his employer, nor any evidence of biographical notability found elsewhere. AllyD (talk) 06:06, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Horgan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined on the grounds that the article was sufficiently different from the last version. This does not change the fact that he still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability requirements for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 20 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the League Of Ireland is not fully professional so he fails WP:NFOOTY & no independent coverage for WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 18:42, 24 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 Mree. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winterwell[edit]

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

Not yet notable. Fails WP:NALBUMS. GHits consist mainly of social media and promotional sites. Only one GNews hit. Declined PROD. GregJackP Boomer! 20:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mree as a plausible search term. Coverage appears limited as this time [113][114][115]; does not yet appear to warrant a separate article. Gong show 01:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:08, 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. Secret ^account 02:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Surrealism[edit]

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

This was deprodded without explanation. The term is a non-notable neologism (coined in 2010 apparently) with no independent sources. The article reads like an essay and is basically original research. What sources that have been added have no connection to the topic (most reference surrealism) and essentially serve to point out that this article is original research and there is no use of the term outside the context of the artist who coined it. Fails WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 00:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a consumer of its references rather than being supported by them: reton, Kaprow and Rosemont all precede the positing of this proposed movement by one or two generations. No evidence that it is notable in itself. AllyD (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is about an art movement originated in 2010 and a manifest that the artist, Philip Henderickx and Marie Daelemans published in 2010, the manifest and the art movement refers to sources and terms used in those articles and so have a connection to this article. The sources that have been added have connection to the article as the manifesto reference to terms of surrealism / Fluxus / Happening / other noted articles. The article is not original research, it is an growing art movement in central Europe, several art manifestations happened under this term and so is larger than only the context of the artists mentioned in it. 81.82.215.154 (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — 81.82.215.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I understand the concern of freshacconci, have added more references to the article on Functional Surrealism, this article is a reference to an existing art movement and is not an original research. Thosewhogetit (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)— Thosewhogetit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There is only one reference that appears to be about the concept. All other references are either about other topics or are closely associated with the artists. References need to be independent of the subject and need to indicate that there is usage of the term beyond the artists who created it. So far, there is no evidence of that. New art movements rarely gain enough traction to be able to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not meant to help establish a concept. It needs to be already established. freshacconci talk to me 13:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will contact the artists to find more online references, however the mentioned articles in Bibliography are published articles on the matter, will update asap.Thosewhogetit (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above discussion establishing that this is a neologism that is not notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

154}}

Keep Many published literature and articles mention functional surrealism, this is not a neologism. 178.50.85.193 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)— 178.50.85.193 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete, there is nothing to merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Goddess[edit]

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

Not notable, promotional. Declined PROD. GregJackP Boomer! 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Notability – Why? What vague suggestion does it even attempt to make? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried searching for information on this book and its publisher, but couldn't find enough to show that either needs an article. The most I found was this interview with a magazine and another interview with the publishers of the Witches' Almanac. That's a decent start, but not enough to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no true problem with the editor that created the article userfying it if she so wished, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scarlet Imprint - This is part of a specialized market for high-end expensive art books. According to a reviewer on Amazon "There are versions of _The Red Goddess_ selling for over a thousand dollars". They are limited edition, collectible, often hand crafted. They are as much works of art as books. There is also a consumer-grade paperback version for the curious. Unfortunately there isn't much in the way of sourcing, only brief mentions (the Fine Books being a good source). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Scarlet Imprint. A book produced in an edition of a mere 156 copies is cearly NN. The publisher page reads like WP:ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world called "fine books" in which books costs upwards of $1000 or more, become collectors items, handmade letter press and bindings, etc.. they are basically works of art, no different than limited runs of other works of art. They also made a $20 paperback version for the curious but that is more than 156 copies. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about fine books (I agree that such bindings exist), it's about a lack of independent sources commenting on the book. Has anyone reviewed it? Have bibliophiles or occultists paid notice to it? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Peterkingiron. Who said the number of books published was a sign that it was not notable, which is an incorrect heuristic for fine books. It's the right vote for the wrong reason. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:40, 22 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 a7 (product, company, and website names are all the same), g11 ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AssiTrack[edit]

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

A 19-day old product is not yet notable. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It doesn't help that all the sources are from the company's website. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New issue tracker with no evidence of attained notability; fails WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Too soon and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SefBau (talk • contribs) 06:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to have multiple reliable sources, non-notable. Superman7515 (talk) 14:40, 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.

[1] ttp://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416476,00.asp

[2] ttp://gma.yahoo.com/video/california-couple-files-lawsuit-over-130731608.html

[3] ttp://articles.mcall.com/2013-04-04/entertainment/mc-kate-gosselin-bullyville-20130404_1_kate-gosselin-jon-kate-class-action-lawsuit

[4] ttp://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/08/kate-gosselin-wiretapping-lawsuit-ex-husband-jon-gosselin-book-author-robert-hoffman/

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]