Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 August	24 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod (programming language)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Every source is WP:PRIMARY. Every one of them. Googling turned up posts to online discussion forums but nothing useful. Additionally, I note that the decision to delete at the previous AfD was unanimous for the same reasons. Msnicki (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article differs significantly from the one that was deleted in 2010, but provides no more evidence of notability than that one did, nor can I find any myself (e.g. I found nothing in Google scholar). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Only found primary sources and forum discussions on Google. SmackoVector (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Please do not. Not all sources are primary. Why are forum discussions not considered sufficient evidence? Furthermore, the Rust article also apparently lacks secondary sources yet it has not been nominated for deletion. I can find many more programming language articles which lack sources or only have primary sources: PEARL_(programming_language), Frink, Qore_(programming_language). dom96 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If no suitable sources can be found, it may only be a matter of time before those other articles are nominated for deletion as well. We do not keep an article because we have also have other stuff that's even worse. Msnicki (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet I'm sure nobody will ever delete the Rust article. So just say "created by a big company" is good enough and doesn't require secondary sources. That would at least be honest. Nimrod is used in the real world: http://forum.nimrod-code.org/t/189. Andreas Rumpf (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)— Andreas Rumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Rust article cites multiple, independent reliable sources. I found three reliable sources for PEARL_(programming_language) with just a couple of google searches, so that has the potential to be improved. I WP:PROD'ed Frink and Qore_(programming_language) as I'm not finding any WP:RS for them. Thanks for pointing those out. I'm happy to take a look at any other programming language article that you don't think meets the notability guidelines. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another language which has only 1 reference and has been present on wikipedia for a long time judging by the history: Io_(programming_language) dom96 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! I've WP:PRODed Io (programming language). Might be simpler to leave notes for other potential candidates for deletion at my talk page, but I'll continue to monitor this page as well. Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a very recent article which includes some information about Nimrod: http://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/benchmarks-round-two-parallel-go-rust-d-scala-and-nimrod/. Is this a viable source? dom96 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Blogs and other self-published sources are not considered WP:RELIABLE sources for purposes of establishing WP:Notability at AfD. Further, the author of the blog appears to be anonymous, rendering this source especially weak. Msnicki (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Language is quite new and hasn't yet gained notability. Does not meet guidelines laid out in WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did my own search for reliable sources; came up empty. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this enough to prove notability? https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/nimrod-a-new-approach-to-meta-programming dom96 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's an advertisement for a talk given by the author. It is not independent of the subject. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps think of it this way: a language becomes notable when people who haven't been involved in its creation start writing about it. If/when this language gets to that point you'll have no problem creating an article. At the moment, though, there just hasn't been enough uptake to get the coverage we need for notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:54, 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) 21:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California Ska-Quake, Vol. 2: The Aftershock[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage beyond an Allmusic link which is in the article. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails WP:NALBUMS as nothing more than a track listing. There are no reliable sources covering this. T C N7JM 13:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS as I'm unable to find coverage for this compilation in reliable sources beyond the Allmusic review. Gong show 18:58, 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. Sandstein 11:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CalEst[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete — Not seeing any mention of the software on the Conteck site. The single peer-reviewed paper that cites the topic refers to a paper I can't find ("A Visual Approach to Teaching and Statistics"). After due diligence, there's just not enough here to satisfy WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:40, 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 redirect to Eckerd Open. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Slims Masters[edit]

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

Duplicate info already covered in the more comprehensive Eckerd Open article. Wolbo (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Eckerd Open. In the case of golf articles at least, tournaments that change names are all listed under the latest tournament's title, and all previous edition names are redirects. For instance, The Honda Classic and titles that redirect to it Honda Classic, Honda Inverrary Classic, American Motors Inverrary Classic, Jackie Gleason-Inverrary Classic and so on....William 12:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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, taking into account the comments that redirecting doesn't make much sense as this is a rather unlikely search term. No objection to anyone making this redirect anyway if people feel that it would be helpful after all. Fram (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Macclesfield Town F.C. season[edit]

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

Season articles for clubs outside of the Football League are not generally considered notable, and I can see no evidence why this is any different. Giant Snowman 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through the season templates for the past few years there are a large volumes of season pages about conference national sides. Also Macclesfield Town are a notable club who have played at various levels throughout the years and if there other season and the club as well are considered notable historically then relegation makes no difference in my view. I personally considered this level ok but no lower but never really though about it. Are there precedents for deletion of season articles at this level or guidelines for notability of season articles within the project other than GNG which i would argue is subjective and possible at this level.Blethering Scot 22:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secondly, it does fail WP:GNG, which is vital. Thirdly, consensus at AFD can be found here and here, amongst many others. Also have a read of WP:NSEASONS for more info. Giant Snowman 22:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuff exists is a mute argument so lets not even go there and its always a sidetrack attempt. My main primary concern is have you attempted to source the page to prove that it wont meet GNG becacaus i suspect this hasnt been explored fully. Also Colwyn Bay were not a conference national team nor were chester and in fact in the chester one it was stated by a user that the conference national was the cut off which was my belief also.Blethering Scot 22:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent club's article. In this AfD from August 2012, the nominator stated that the cut-off point is Conference National, and if that is correct this article is about a notable subject and shouldn't be deleted. However, the AfD I linked to was closed as "no consensus" due to having a well-sourced prose. As WP:NSEASONS states that we should redirect season-articles without a well-sources prose to the parent article, this article should be redirected to Macclesfield Town F.C.. Mentoz86 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per Mentoz. in addition, NSEASONS leans towards the view that season articles should be reserved for teams playing in a country's top league. Although this is not set out as a hard and fast rule, it makes sense to me. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the articles i.e. missing a full prose is not a reason for an AFD. The only valid reason would be notability or policy and i dont believe an attempt was made to see if this could be made to meet GNG and im fairly sure it can but thats not my job thats the nominator's to check. Mentoz86 the AFDs linked to so far either all have set the conference national as the bar or are below that level, and i am yet to see evidence to the contrary. It should be noted that if this AFD success and i don't have a personal affiliation or view re it i will be nominating all season articles at this level which there are a very large volume that hasnt been nominated prior to this and i suspect that is because the bar wasn't set at this level previously but lower.Blethering Scot 12:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My comment is about the requirements of NSEASONS, there is no way that the fifth teir of any competition could be described as a "top professional league". In addition there is nothing notable about this mid-table performance, so it would seem the GNG check has been done and this article has failed. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Not only is Macclesfield Town a notable club who have played at notable levels i believe that this could be made to meet GNG and an attempt should of been done by the nominator to do so not simply it doesn't meet GNG in its current state. AFD's arent for the state it is in so i believe the above two redirect votes arent valid as notability is what AFD is for not state of article. On top of that evidence provided indicates that the conference national was the level at which season articles were allowed and the AFD's that the nom and one other provided were either for teams lower than that and in fact mention conference national as that bar.Blethering Scot 12:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin is required to read the comments behind the bolded votes, and when s/he does they'll realize that I'm opposed to deleting this article (unless I forgot a "not"), because it is on a notable topic, but that I'm suggesting it be redirected to the parent article until someone writes a well-sourced prose. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Season articles should follow the same notability guidelines as players - e.g. fully pro leagues only. Number 5 7 13:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Got to have a cut-off point and this club fails notability by not being in The Football League in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club is not in a fully professional league,and the season article has no special reason to be an exception of WP:NSEASONS.L smll 03:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the value in redirecting. It's a very unlikely search term: no one is going to search "2012–13 Macclesfield Town F.C. season" for general information on the club, and focusing on last season is going to be WP:UNDUE/WP:RECENTISM anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 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 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Woking F.C. season[edit]

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

Season articles for clubs outside of the Football League are not generally considered notable, and I can see no evidence why this is any different. Giant Snowman 21:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent club's article. In this AfD from August 2012, the nominator stated that the cut-off point is Conference National, and if that is correct this article is about a notable subject and shouldn't be deleted. However, the AfD I linked to was closed as "no consensus" due to having a well-sourced prose. As WP:NSEASONS states that we should redirect season-articles without a well-sources prose to the parent article, this article should be redirected to Woking F.C.. Mentoz86 (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per Mentoz. Any key events can be noted in sourced prose in the club article. Fenix down (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Season articles should follow the same notability guidelines as players - e.g. fully pro leagues only. Number 5 7 13:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Got to have a cut-off point and this club fails notability by not being in The Football League in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the value in redirecting. It's a very unlikely search term: no one is going to search "2012–13 Woking F.C. season" for general information on the club, and focusing on last season is going to be WP:UNDUE/WP:RECENTISM anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator's statement does not reflect years of consensus at WikiProject Football. There is plenty of precedent for having season articles for Conference Premier clubs; they get loads of independent coverage in reliable sources like BBC Sport, The Non-League Paper, Non-League Daily, Soccerway etc. Not sure where this recent spate of deletion nominations has come from, like I say these articles were considered notable for years due to clearly passing GNG. BigDom (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has not a single source! From a Google search if you take away references from the cub's website and WP:ROUTINE coverage and nothing is left. There is no reliable source that has written about this club's season. Fails WP:GNG. A redirect would only be justified if it was a plausible search term over and above a search for Woking F.C. - it is not. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:28, 3 September 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. Not a valid deletion argument at all. postdlf (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smash and Dash[edit]

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

These are "former" nicknames and they are rarely used anymore. Natg 19 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disambiguation pages don't fall under the normal notability guidelines as they are used to refer and direct searches for subjects. I believe they link to notable articles (and that's not questioned) so we should probably keep this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, valid disambiguation page. Meets MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 05:07, 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 keep. Keep arguments are stronger regarding coverage. And apart from issues with characterizing everything here as "one event," note also that WP:BLP1E expressly applies only to low profile individuals: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." It should be obvious how that applies to someone who chose to appear on nationally broadcast television multiple times. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Guttenplan[edit]

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

As per the "one event" concept, this page should be deleted because the person in question is notable for only one event (winning university challenge). This is a yearly competition, which decreases its notability even more. There is also the fact that none of the other winners for this year, or indeed any year, have articles about them (except if they went on to become notable for some other reason). If people consider this person an especially notable winner, they should add a note to the page University Challenge 2009–10, where he is mentioned. Benboy00 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from the winning of University challenge he has become an internet legend and household name in his own right. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find evidence of his status as either an "internet legend" or a household name. I did find his facebook page, which had 95 likes, and a few (extremely short) 2010 news articles from just after he won. I still think this comes under the heading not-notable as per WP:BLP1E. Benboy00 (talk) 09:52, 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) 14:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage of this person specifically in mainstream media which passes WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look further down that page at WP:NOTABILITY#T, you can see that, similar to WPBLP1E, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." This is undoubtably the case. It is on this basis, and for the reasons I stated before, that I think that the vote on this article should be Delete. Benboy00 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject's reputation was established in multiple events across several months, climaxing in a final watched by millions. They pass WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:SPORTCRIT by virtue of their acclaimed performance and following, as documented in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not questioning the reliability of the sources, nor am I questioning the number of such sources. What I am saying is that he is notable for only a single event, i.e. winning university challenge while beating back at Paxman (or something). I would dispute that he has a following, noting that he has less than 200 followers on twitter, and less than 100 likes on facebook in the past 3 years. Many, many people have won University Challenge. They were all in a final, and all (or almost all) of these finals were watched by millions. There are many articles on the winners of University Challenge, yet none of them have a page (unless, as I said before, they were notable for another reason). All of the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines you point to seem to be overruled by WP:BLP1E if you click the links in the guidelines. I notice that you are the creator of this page, and so perhaps are somewhat biased towards its existence, although I would be happy to be proved wrong. Nevertheless, in summary, this person is not suitable for a biography because he is mentioned only in connection to one reasonably unnotable event, and apparently does not have any significant following. Again, I would suggest that, if people still think that he is slightly more notable than other UC winners, a note be put on the page UC 2010. Benboy00 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:AFD indicates that the creator of an article should be notified but the nominator did not do this in this case; I found the discussion in the course of routine patrolling. Our procedures expect article authors to participate in the discussion as they naturally will have a good understanding of the topic. To suggest that this is bias is absurd. Also absurd is the repeated clinging to BLP1E when the subject participated in multiple events and was celebrated in a specific way for their outstanding personal performances. BLP1E is directed at people like the subject's team mates - spear carriers who had a supporting role rather than a lead one. Warden (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, I apologize for not notifying you, I am not too familiar with the deletion process and assumed it would notify you automatically. Second, the reason I point out bias is not just because you are the creator, but because you also, in violation of wikipedia policy, removed a speedy delete tag from this article when you are the creator. This is not allowed. It would imply that you had no good reason to suggest for keeping the article, but you did not want it deleted. This screams "bias" to me. BLP1E is most certainly applicable here. He participated in, and is known for, one event, and that is the final and arguing with Paxman. There is not even a hint in the BLP1E section about anything about spear carriers. Again, I would like to point out: you are saying that this person is notable for being part of the winning team of a yearly, uk competition which has been going on for more than 50 years. The only difference between this person and any of those other people is that a few articles say that he has a cult following. There is no evidence of this. Literally none. If you can find anything that actually demonstrates a cult following, or any sort of significant cult impact, then I will concede that this person is notable. Until then, however, i find myself coming to the conclusion that this person is not notable, is low profile, and this article should be deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also question whether the guidelines that you quote are relevant. For example, WP:ENTERTAINER seems like it is written for career entertainers, and WP:SPORTCRIT clearly states that it is for Sports personalities, which is clearly irrelevant to this topic. Benboy00 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:ENTERTAINER includes celebrities with a "a significant cult following" and our subject had this, as documented by reliable sources. WP:SPORTCRIT seems appropriate for mental sports as well as physical ones. Why should we discriminate? Warden (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, Sport. It is not discrimination, it is being accurate. Just because something is a game or competition, does not mean it is a sport. Then, as I said before, there is 0 evidence of any actual cult following. He is not famous on social networks, nor is there any mention of him outside of news articles from that short period of time (as far as I could tell). Benboy00 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not believe that games show contestant (even winners) are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have so many articles of this kind that we subdivide them by country. See category:Game show contestants. This includes other outstanding participants in University Challenge such as Gail Trimble, who likewise attracted special attention and has been kept repeatedly at AFD. These examples demonstrate that Peterkingiron's belief is a personal opinion, unsupported by evidence or policy. Warden (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I dont really think that the Gail Trimble article should have been kept, we are not debating whether that article should be deleted. You could argue that she was notable because of her cultural impact, although that reporting seems to be ridiculously sensationalist, or that this team was especially notable because it won and then was disqualified (and as the captain, she was notable?). As you yourself said, she was apparently the greatest contestant of all time, and was subject to a hate campaign, which may make her more notable. She also apparently became important to the sexism debate. Alexander guttenplan has had none of these things happen. I also notice that during that debate, you quoted things like WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ANYBIO, which again, are not really relevant. On your point about other gameshow articles, while I am certainly not going to click every one, so many of the ones I did click had sections like "murder charge" and "career" and various other sections that implied that this person was notable for reasons other than the gameshow. There are a few that are just about the gameshow, and some of those are being considered for deletion. Benboy00 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is notable for one event, nothing more. He fails the rules against articles created for people notable for just one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the general notability guidelines from the ample coverage he received in many reliable sources. He won over plenty of fans so I agree he passes WP:Entertainer as well for "creating a frenzy among his supporters - dubbed 'Guttenfans' - who have raised him to heart-throb status..[1] Dream Focus 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source says that, "he put his success down to ... spending too much time ' procrastinating on Wikipedia'." There's hope for us too then ... :) Warden (talk) 16:54, 23 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) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted before, there is no evidence of any actual cult following. The daily mail is well known for making things up, from entire articles to fake quotes. It is not hard to imagine them making such a thing up. It is also beside the point. The actual evidence of a real fan base stems entirely from very few, very old, news stories. Other sources that could verify such a following, like facebook and twitter, seem to suggest the opposite i.e. that the papers greatly exaggerated any fan base (I also notice they quoted no figures, which they seem to like doing). I feel that this is a persuasive argument, but I would be happy to hear a more persuasive opposing one, either on this comment or the earlier two. Please read those first before commenting though. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is the one making things up here. See The Guardian, Daily Telegraph and Times for confirmation of the fan-following. Warden (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I make anything up? All I ever did is ask for evidence. Where I made any statement, I backed it up with references. You, on the other hand, have simply kept recycling a failed argument. Those quotes also seem to prove me right about the quoting numbers thing :P. As far as I can see, those articles also all point to the same, now non-existent facebook group. I am still looking for evidence of any *actual* cult following. All I ask for is a sign that he has followers. I have looked for evidence, and keep coming up empty. If you can find this one thing, then I will concede the entire argument, but until then I am still of my original opinion. Maybe you can find some current media that mentions him with Highbeam Research. Also, please dont lie by saying I am making anything up. It's quite a serious accusation, one that requires substantial evidence. Please explicitly point out the parts to which you refer? Benboy00 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Multiple sources have been provided demonstrating this significant coverage. Further sources are not required to satisfy you personally. Warden (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My entire argument is based on the WP:BLP1E policy. To argue that this policy does not apply, you have to show that his "notability" (which i do not beleive really exists in the first place) is based not just on that one event OR show that he has (or had at one point) significant cult following. Since you have failed (in my opinion) to show the former, and seem to have given up (if I am wrong on this, please correct me), then this argument is now entirely about cult following. My point about the facebook group was NOT that it used to be a cult following, but now its not so its not relevant. My point is that 1. 1600 fans (for a facebook page) should not, I think, count as a cult following, and 2. the fact that it no longer exists implies that there were never enough fans to merit sustained interest. There are currently over 620 million facebook groups ^[1], and based on this 2009 data ^[2] (which is around the time that the final happened) the average page had over 4000 likes. This guttenplan page had less than half the average (quite a lot less). Does this really count as a "cult following"? Especially considering that cult following implies some level of dedicated fans (according to wiki), when everyone knows just how easy and trivial it is to like a facebook page. You also havent responded to my request for clarification. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is irrelevant because the subject appeared in multiple events in a high profile way. The calculations about cult following are irrelevant because they are OR in support of a personal opinion, contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V. We have multiple independent reliable sources reporting the cult following and so we're good. Warden (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more relevant point, which you should have mentioned earlier, is that discussed below (about him appearing in an entirely different show). It is because of this that I am changing my opinion to keep. I would also like to ask again for any evidence for your rather serious allegation that I made anything up. Benboy00 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until he does something else worthy of notice. I've considered the arguments above and I think BLP1E applies. —SMALL JIM 14:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is for a "single event" but the subject took part in multiple events in more than one year. For example, see Alexander Guttenplan returns in battle of the TV quiz geeks in which he returned to lead a team in a different quiz show. The source here is a respectable broadsheet and the subject is getting top billing and a photograph. This repeated national coverage shows him to be high profile per Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual. Warden (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG. Guttenplan had received and coverage in reliable sources over an extended period, becoming more than just a blip on the scope. The article and project will benefit from expansion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG per the extensive coverage. Per the Colonel, he doesn't seem to be a low profile individual, and therefore BLP1E does not apply. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted in the discussion above, the media coverage of this individual has persisted over an extended period of time. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:58, 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) 16:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology as a science[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:FRINGE. The article documents a claim made by Scientologists that hasn't generated any real debate. Article looks like original research and documents the times that Scientologists have made the claim that Scientology is an exact science. Coffeepusher (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite explanations I provided on Talk:Scientology as a science which refute Coffeeepusher's POV assertions, I believe it is pointless to continue. There is not a single article on Wikipedia which deals with the scientific and medical claims made by Scientology and their refutations/rebuttals by scientists and doctors. Apparently, no one is interested in such an article. So, while tons of garbage articles get kept, articles made by PR firms on behalf of non-notable characters, legitimate articles with a basis in reality should be deleted. Right? Delete away! Laval (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really curious what my POV assertions are in this case Laval? Could you please clarify.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, purely as an aside, I find it terrible that it's impossible to start an article and work on it gradually without being pushed to fill it up with dozens of sources to justify it, as has been done here. The article is about a subject that would take me, by myself, quite a long time to develop, and yet other editors, pushed for me to develop it overnight otherwise they would nominate for deletion or merging. And Wikimedia Foundation wonders why editors are dropping off one after another and questioning why it's become impossible to retain any solid, academic editors? Laval (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Laval, having verifiable and reliable sources along with a neutral point of view is one of the five pillars upon which Wikipedia was built, so its kind of a big deal. In addition, those in academia are well-versed in citing everything they write. Citing your sources is something you should always do as a matter of course. If you need extra time, you can always write your article in user space until it is ready, then move it into article space. Editors do that all the time. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I have mentioned on the article talk page, it consists only of self published claims and is one sided. While the author alludes to other relevant aspects and sources, he has failed to introduce them. There has been no development of the article. I believe that if User:Laval wants to develop this article in the direction he is alluding to, but is pressed for time, he should go to a sandbox, or AfD, where he can tinker at his own pace, but not in main space. Ochiwar (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean AfC, not AfD Ochiwar (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I have waited several days to give Laval the chance to at least include these sources that they allude to. As I stated in the nomination, from what I can see the topic itself is not notable, meaning that there isn't significant coverage in third party reliable sources that would support a full article. The sources provided are either primary sources, or aren't primarily about Scientology as a science, rather they mention it in passing. If Laval has the sources they should add them to the article. If the article is up to snuff before the AFD then I would withdraw the nomination, but by my research there aren't any sources, and Laval has expressed no interest in improving the article that they have created.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: This article essentially amounts to a non-neutral summary of Hubbard's claims on the matter. These are best covered in the Scientology article and its sub-articles. Alternatively, the claims could be merged into article on Hubbard.Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 17 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) 20:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge: this NPOV article may better be done by being deleted or merged into the L. Ron Hubbard article. As far as the content goes, it probably does not warrant inclusion or retention. The article appears to be largely unsubstantiated OR. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary sources galore. Not what's needed to indicate the notability of the subject. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:59, 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Braydon Szafranski[edit]

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

I have been discussing this BLP with a colleague of mine from the Skateboarding Wikiproject and neither of us could find anything to substantiate notability. There's lots of passing mentions in videos or in relation to the work of his sponsors but just being a sponsored pro skateboarder isn't really enough for someone to be considered notable. There's one primary source interview and one article from Skateboarder Magazine. Not really enough to get us to WP:GNG just yet. He might be notable one day, but I don't think we've arrived at that day just yet. Stalwart111 06:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find anything to show he meets any notability standards. Jakejr (talk) 01:42, 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, T C N7JM 09:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The two references above from Stalwart seem to meet the minimum set out in WP:BASIC for media coverage. In addition, the article states that Szafranski won the "best rookie award" at the TransWorld Skateboard Awards. Now I know nothing of professional skateboarding, but these award purport to be the most significant awards event in the industry. Therefore, if true, the subject would also be notable as per WP:ANYBIO for winning a significant award. CooperDB (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, gotta disagree with you there. Believe me, as a member of the project I'd love for more semi-pro (a more apt description in this case) skateboarders to be notable. The interview is a primary source - hardly independent secondary coverage of the subject and such interviews have consistently been rejected as adequate coverage on that basis (see, for example, this AFD where I came at it from the same place as you). The award really isn't a big deal - it's one magazine's view of the world as judged by its own staff. The party is actually a bigger deal. ROTY usually goes to someone who is new and made the cover of their magazine for the first time (see 2011 and 2012). You're welcome to disagree; that's probably just an extended version of my rationale. I'd love to be wrong, so feel free to prove me so! Cheers, Stalwart111 12:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, the interview is clearly not a "primary source". ESPN exerts editorial control of what they publish, and if they decide this guy is notable enough to conduct an interview with and publish on their web site, then that is good enough to make it a reliable, secondary source. Any decent biographic article is going to interview the subject if possible - that doesn't at all invalidate the "independent" criteria of WP:RS (seeWP:INDEPENDENT). As for the award, thanks for enlightening me on the nature of it. Perhaps then the subject doesn't meet the award criteria, but still meets the minimum for WP:BASIC so my opinion remains unchanged. Perhaps your project should look at establishing some notability guidelines for Skateboarders for Wikipedia:Notability (sports) to make these decisions clearer? Cheers. CooperDB (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it has been discussed, mostly because a lack of guidelines leads to inconsistencies like the one I pointed out above. Anyway, I'm obviously not going to fight hard to delete something I'd rather see kept anyway - I nominated it because consensus has been that such skaters are not notable and our project should be upholding that. Appreciate your input! Stalwart111 13:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the independent coverage required for WP:GNG. The ESPN interview is not independent because it was done at the ESPN sponsored X-Games.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage (from Feb. 2012) was not "done at the ESPN sponsored X-Games" which as far as I can tell takes place in the summer for skateboarding but rather the interview just appears under the X Games section of their website where all their skateboard coverage goes. Further, the same news was also covered by Yahoo! Sports in any case. CooperDB (talk) 15:00, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 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) 21:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Kuykendall[edit]

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

Relisting this article for a new debate. User:DGG listed this article for deletion on 6 August 2013 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Kuykendall, but that debate was closed when an editor attempted to bundle this article with the now deleted Pulpo Media at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulpo Media. While the consensus did end up favoring deletion for Pulpo Media, this article was added too late in the process for a consensus to emerge. So I've undeleted the article and am relisting it here with the original rationale. On the merits, no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's rationale follows, verbatim. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable executive of non notable company (see adjacent afd) references are essentially PR. Another example of the folly of the frequent promotional technique of trying to write more than one article on a very borderline subject--if either are noticed, both are liable to get deleted DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable executive of a company that was also deemed non-notable and article deleted. werldwayd (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with views expressed above, merely an attempt at self promotion. Finnegas (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The external links include an interview with him on Spanish-language CNN, but everything else is press releases and such. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 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. Close call on this one, but the "rebuttal" of Guy1980 about Hullaballoo Wolfowitz concern about the sources that were linked by Morbidthoughts basically confirms what most of the delete commentators (not David's) commented on her not meeting WP:GNG/WP:PORNBIO. I don't find the keep commentators on the available sources persuasive as well, rather avoiding the question and focusing on "her awards" and the source about her being Austrian most famous porn star, which "might" have tipped it over to no consensus was based on a radio show, which isn't an independent, secondary source of the subject. With the still unclear concerns about the sources and considering this is a BLP as well, policy based consensus is to delete. Secret ^account 02:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Pornero[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as the sole award she won is not a "well-known and significant industry award". The Eroticline Awards have since been discontinued and the winners were chosen by "a jury and by a ballot of webmasters or registered users of several German erotic websites". Finnegas (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (but leaning toward delete). First I'd have to determine the notability of the Eroticline Awards (the article about it is unsourced). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The (medien) eroticline awards are basically the Venus Award which are still ongoing. It was renamed because the sponsors of the awards changed during 2004-2009. It's like how the names of stadiums change when the sponsorship deals change. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How notable are those awards though? That article isn't sourced either. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is doubts whether the awards are notable, surely we can conclude they are not a "well-known and significant industry award", which is the Criteria to satisfy WP:PORNBIO? Finnegas (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anyone know German? or can ask a German how well known they are per WP:IDONTKNOWIT? [2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:12, 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FYI, I've recently edited the main article that's in question here (as well as the "parent articles", Eroticline Awards & Venus Award, that are also in question above). I can see how one could view the Renee Pornero article as borderline from a USA point-of-view when it comes to PORNBIO, but it seems that the "Best Female Performer (Europe)" is a "well-known or significant industry award" in Europe (as a part of "the world's largest erotic trade fair") & it's received attention through at least AVN magazine in the USA. That's not even considering the other award nominations (one of which is "only" a scene award) that Ms. Pornero has also received. Both the Eroticline Awards & Venus Award articles could use some more work for sure though. Guy1890 (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Living and working in Germany I've never heard of the award, and I used to live right above a sex shop. No one I asked from the shop (which is part of a company that produces adult videos) seemed to thing it was an "industry standard" award. I can't find any mention of them other then a facebook page by them, and the listing of the award on a winner's bio. Caffeyw (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less per nom's sound analysis. Per PORNBIO, the recently added scene nomination does not contribute to notability, and by previously established consensus, the CAVR "nomination" (which reflects merely receiving four votes in a dubious online poll) fails the well-known/significant standard. Trade show/trade association awards generally lack the independence and significance required to indicate notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automotive Dealership Excellence Awards (2nd nomination) for an example of the principle routinely applied in a different industry.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Trade show/trade association awards generally lack the independence and significance required to indicate notability"...is a baloney statement, since many of the adult film awards (like the AVN Awards, XBIZ Awards, etc.) are basically trade show awards. Guy1890 (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Prototypical porn "bio" with zero actual biographical content but a photo. Typical. Zero reliable sourcing as well, clear failure of GNG. Awards are not significant, a Howard Stern appearance not significant. Nada. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe she passes the GNG from the Google News hits. [4][5][6] She seems to be an Austrian celebrity considering the other gnews hits that just name drop her. According to Austrian press, [7], she is described as the most famous Austrian porn star. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the Google News hits do not constitute "Significant coverage" Per WP:GNG. Being the most famous Austrian Porn star is not much of a claim to fame considering there is only one other "performer" in Category:Austrian female pornographic film actors. Finnegas (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another variation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because there are only 2 wikipedia article on Austrian porn actors at the moment does not say anything about their relative fame. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Being the most famous Austrian Porn star is not much of a claim to fame considering there is only one other 'performer' in Category:Austrian female pornographic film actors"...which you're also trying to have deleted at the moment. Guy1890 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes that is correct but I fail to see how this is relevant to this discussion. 11:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Weak Keep, some decent coverage in German language mainstream press plus a borderline notable award. Borderline in both ways, but the sum of the two things makes me lean more towards a keep than towards deletion. Cavarrone 10:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wikipedia notability guidelines for porn people. WP:PORNBIO. Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify how you believe she passes WP:PORNBIO? Finnegas (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated or won several major pornographic awards. They don't have to be AVN per se. Herzlicheboy (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By well-established consensus, the CAVR fail the PORNBIO standard (they're based on an often-low-participation online poll - and in this case the nomination amounted to nothing more than receiving a whopping four votes in that poll. By the terms of PORNBIO itself, the scene-related award lacks the necessary significance. That leaves only the dubious, short-lived trade show trophy; the claim of "several major pornographic awards" is transparently false. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said nominations for major awards. Stop being so tendentious. Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's way too much coverage of pornography on Wikipedia; deleting the biographies of marginally notable performers would be a good start in cleaning out the stables. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not censored and arguments that really amount to "I just don't like it" really aren't going to carry much weight here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Au contraire; I'm just trying to move our coverage of this distasteful subject back to neutrality by counteracting the pro-porn systematic bias. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In other words, what I said...thanks for confirming that. Guy1890 (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not really. Just ask yourself: if this were an article on an amateur-level actress of equal notability, would we be hosting it? Pornographic films are generally low-circulation affairs, equivalent to indie/art/cult films in terms of viewership. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "Pornographic films are generally low-circulation affairs, equivalent to indie/art/cult films in terms of viewership." Got a source for that opinion? I didn't think so. Look, you've been exceeding honest about your opinion of the adult film genre in general, which is actually quite refreshing...considering some that routinely vote "delete" in these kind of AfDs probably share the exact same opinion but are too fearful to actually say it in the open. Guy1890 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Ukrained2012 (talk) 17:25, 23 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) 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. How many times is this going to be relisted? This has been going on since 9 August (20 days now). Looks like a clear "non consensus" to me. What's the point of keeping this open so long? Is someone hoping for a specific result? You all agree? Herzlicheboy (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that AfDs can be relisted up to two times before they must be closed in some way, shape or form. It doesn't happen always, but it's not that unusual. Uninvolved administrators sometimes have a hard time discerning consensus in these types of discussions. Guy1890 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that careful examination of the sources cited by Morbidthoughts, above, shows a failure to satisfy the GNG. The source which characterizes her as a "famous" Austrian porn star appears to be, per its de-wiki article, an online "magazine" prsdenting volunteer user contributions, apparently failing RS requirements. The first source listed turns out to be a radio station's listing of its own schedule, not an independent source. The second quotes Pornero, but provides no coverage regarding her beyond her occupation. The third source is clearly unacceptable - it's a retail site/Amazon affiliate which also hawks VOD and video rental services. These sources do not amount to independent, substantive coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The source which characterizes her as a 'famous' Austrian porn star appears to be, per its de-wiki article, an online 'magazine' prsdenting volunteer user contributions" The source in question from far above is actually just an interview that was done with the subject of this Wikipedia article, which is currently only used as a citation in that article very sparingly.
- "The first source listed turns out to be a radio station's listing of its own schedule, not an independent source. The second quotes Pornero, but provides no coverage regarding her beyond her occupation." Neither of these websites are used in the article in question.
- "The third source is clearly unacceptable"...and the info that's it is currently used for as a citation in the article in question (that the subject here appeared in the 2008 documentary Porno Unplugged) is further substantiated by this subject's IMDb entry (under appearance as "Self"). Guy1890 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Tuff[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. It's certainly subjective here since we're talking about degrees of significance.

I think the line "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." is relevant here. While this event maybe notable, I don't think it qualifies as "highly significant". No one died here. There's no indication that this event will spur some significant changes.

I think this article falls under the line: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event."

I don't think there's an article on the attempted shooting itself, so all this stuff should go there rather than an article on Tuff. Oddly enough, the creator of this article created a redirect from McNair gunman standoff to Antoinette Tuff rather than create an article on the standoff. Transcendence (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Will you please stop trying to delete articles about terrorist attacks? These incidents are very dangerous and deadly and we need all the documentation we can get. Sooner or later other people will notice the pattern of deletions. It looks very odd when you and other editors immediately try to delete articles about personalities that are all over the international headlines and just got invited to visit the president of the United States. BLP1E does not apply to somebody who is famous worldwide in a day, it applies to somebody that nobody has heard of. What is your real agenda here, it's certainly does not look look improving the usefulness of Wikipedia since there are thousands of people who want to look up information on the woman and this incident. These "only 1 or 2 people died in a state of 5 million" are just disgusting, and then complaining about editors who write edits favorable to Israelis and Jews but unfavorable to Iran and Islamist terrorists and no-motive terrorists. Redhanker (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP1E: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:"

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." This applies.
"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This applies.
"It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." This one is more subjective, as I stated above. I do not believe this event to be significant (notable, but not significant), especially since no one died. Hence, I conclude this applies as well.

Therefore, I conclude WP:BLP1E does apply. There is nothing in WP:BLP1E to backup your claim that: "BLP1E does not apply to somebody who is famous worldwide in a day, it applies to somebody that nobody has heard of." One of the reasons WP:BLP1E exists is to deal with people who are famous for one event. If nobody has heard of a person, then WP:BLP1E wouldn't matter because no one would write an article on that person in the first place. Transcendence (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the arguments presented by Transcendence. Not every person who is "famous" for a day or who meets the President is therefore entitled to a Wikipedia article. I doubt there are hordes of people looking for (or even expecting to find) an article here on Wikipedia on Ms. Tuff; if they are looking, they are looking at news sources, which is exactly where they should look. Those source materials will remain available (at their sources and in search engines) for years to come on the Internet, far longer than anyone's memory of (or interest in) Ms. Tuff or her heroism, as heroic as it may have been. I do not think this one event and act of bravery justifies a biographical entry for Ms. Tuff. She deserves mention, but in the context of an article on the event if one is created. I also find Redhanker's attempt to connect the initiation of this AfD discussion to his/her theories about Antisemitism on the part of other editors both reprehensible and misguided. Dwpaul (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, truth be told, this is not a biographical article even though it is titled as if it was. Only the first sentence contains anything that is biographical concerning the article's subject (her employment). Every other sentence is either about the Dekalb County incident or (very briefly) about her role in it. Hence the article is really about the incident, not Ms. Tuff, and it should be titled as such, possibly (but not necessarily) with a redirect, rather than the other way 'round. Dwpaul (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:BLP1E example, also borderline CSD A7. LGA _talk^edits 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The significance of the event is that Antoinette's presence, intelligence, and courage saved the lives of innocent school kids and their teachers. She was able to dissuade an active shootist with almost 500 rounds of ammunition and who knew he was going to die that day to lay down his weapon. This non-violent turn around of a deadly situation that has plagued the United States for decades could be the way of the future. This qualifies as a significant change, especially given that the news media (Washington Post^[3], Slate Magazine^[4]) continues to report on this event one week later. WalkingTwo (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:WalkingTwo's account appeared to have been created solely for the purpose of input for this AfD. Transcendence (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, with regards to "This non-violent turn around of a deadly situation that has plagued the United States for decades could be the way of the future.", please see WP:CRYSTAL. With regards to "This qualifies as a significant change", I find that statement to be ridiculous as this is not the first, second, or even third time a nonviolent solution to a shooting has happened. Transcendence (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the notability requirements for both persons and events. I disagree with Transcendence that the content could be moved to an article on the shooting instead of Ms. Tuff. This event does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:EVENT at this time, since the duration of coverage has not been long enough to suggest enduring significance. Edge3 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E, and premature. An article on the shooting might possibly be justified under notability guidelines, though they are questions over its long-term notability; but an article on Ms Tuff certainly isn't at this time. If she goes on to become a more significant figure, an article can always be created at a later date. Robofish (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To soon to properly determine, I agree with Transcendence Regarding WP:BLP1E I believe Antoinette currently meets ‘’’High-profile’’’ status at this time for ‘’’low-profile individuals’’’ {essay|WP:LOWPROFILE|WP:WIALPI} Sources CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Washington Post.

Why also delete when based on the information and sources below may meet anyone of these. Just looking at the sources and recommending to also Keep because;

Regarding {WP:WI1E} sources indicate Antoinette may soon meet ‘’’Any biography’’’{shortcut|WP:ANYBIO} and could be soon merged into CNN Heroes article. Sources CNN

Another possible merge could soon be made are suggestions for Antoinette to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Sources International Business Times as well as many users on Twitter and Face book are trying to gain support for this.

Antoinette’s circumstances are currently being used in national news stories as examples of Empathy, Compassion and Sympathy sources National Post, Chicago Tribune, CNN, Huffington Post and the Los Angeles Times

Interestingly enough Antoinette’s 911 quote "Baby, everything is gonna be alright" is the title of a song by Willie Dixon and included in the lyrics of B.B. King’s song “Need your love so bad” doesn't help one way or another I know but interesting info. Tinkermen (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked this lady up on Wikipedia, and was bemused to find this argument taking place between Wikipedia enthusiasts. It strikes me with your analysis of "WP:BLP1E" strikes me with your analysis of "WP:BLP1E" that many of you have long ago stopped seeing the wood for the trees (or - worse - are using a legalistic argument to disguise a political motivation). Clearly this woman is someone who many thousands of people are going to want to read about for many years to come, if only as a result of the historical record of the coverage she has received in the last week. I am a wikpedia user and very occasional editor - one of my main articles is "Antonio Jose Enes" - an obscure character from Portuguese history whose article attracts two-three visits a day. Even on the most conservative of estimates the level of interest in Ms Tuffs is going to go far beyond that for the next decade. I strongly content that this woman is significant and she is of interest beyond the specific event in which she was involved (to engage with the BLP1E argument). But most importantly she is a serious figure who people are going to want to read about. If leading Wikipedians lose sight of that, it makes me worried for the future usefulness and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. Atrapalhado 22:44, 26 August 2013 (London)

Comment You make a lot of claims, but do not back them up.

"Clearly this woman is someone who many thousands (or at the very least hundreds) of people are going to want to read about for many years to come." That's speculation. See WP:CRYSTAL.
"Even on the most conservative of estimates the level of interest in Ms Tuffs is going to go far beyond that for the next decade and probably beyond." More speculation.
"This woman is significant and she is of interest beyond the specific event in which she was involved (to engage with the BLP1E argument)." Really? Why is she of interest beyond her involvement of the shooting?
"But most importantly she is a serious figure who people are going to want to read about." Again, speculation.Transcendence (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of edits that will I hope clarify my argument. In particular cI think the level of coverage this woman has already received justifies a statement that there will be ongoing interest, if only as a result of historical interest. But more importantly, my appeal is precisely to common sense, rather than the legalistic dispute going here - you don't need a crystal ball to know that Antoinette Tuff is going to be of more interest even in a decade's time than Antonio Jose Enes, just common sense. Atrapalhado

You "clarified" your argument by suggesting I nominated this article for deletion because of political motivation? Are you serious? If you suspect I am not acting in good faith, I encourage you to do something about it instead of just sneaking such offensive accusations into here. Keep in mind that that this borders on a personal attack.

If you're appealing to common sense, then I don't see how you can possibly suggest Tuff will be garnering interest a decade from now. Common sense tells me that next to no one (that wasn't involved with the event) will look her up and she certainly isn't going to be of more interest than Antonio Jose Enes. Common sense tells me that at least academics will be interested in Enes, whereas nearly no one will even remember the name Antoinette Tuff in the coming decades. Your argument that this article should exist because Antonio Jose Enes exists is a classic instance of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Transcendence (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification I was drawing your attention to was the line that she would be of interest "if only as a result of the historical record of coverage received in the last week." My political motivation point wasn't directed really at you - just to express my general bemusement at why people might want this article deleted, which can only be for two reasons to my mind; because people have lost sight of the whole purpose of Wikipedia (which - and sorry for any offence - is how I would characertise your stance), or for other, political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus on the incident or delete. An article on the incident would be fine, and this article would make a fine beginning for one, since that is what most of the present content concerns. An article on the individual would fail WP:BLP1E; there's nothing to say about this woman that isn't related to the attempted shooting. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete delete per above. Non notable; WP not a crime blotter. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:BLP1E. The event itself doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the subject "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." --BDD (talk) 21:18, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Contract Research Organizations[edit]

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

Although the G11 speedy tag on this article has been removed on the grounds of editing dont by the creator after tagging, the fact remains that this is a non-notable organization, and none of the sources used are non-primary or non-trivial. The Forbes link is a dead link. Google News returns nothing either. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notability. No independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 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) 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W. Carey[edit]

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

This looks well-sourced, but as far as I can see, every reference is either (a) a listing, mostly from lists of lawyers (b) not about the subject, or (c) a passing mention, bar a single reference - the Orlando Sentinel one. I'm not convinced that a single local news story is enough to pass GNG; the subject appears to be only the head of a local chapter of an organisation. Article written by a paid editor, Added: nearly all of whom's other articles have been deleted for non-notability. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a paid editor, and not all of my contributions from Wikipedia have been deleted (although I have a feeling they may be soon). I do not really understand the assault on my articles, but you are the experts, presumably. One of the notability criterion is to have served in an organization on the State level which this person has (Florida chairperson for MADD). Neurosciency (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That State level notability criteria is for politicians. And I apologise, I did miss the borderline notable Jonathan Pease (creative designer) and Geoffrey David Sewell. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oof. I made it through every one of these sources in this thoroughly over-footnoted article. By about halfway through something like this, you start to feel like you're really being used, that your time is really being wasted. When every source turns out to WP:PRIMARY or trivial, you get to suspecting what's ahead. But do you give up and come here to !vote without having checked them all or do you soldier on? I actually did soldier on and can report what I found. The only thing that might even possibly qualify is the Orlando Sentinel article. But if you read carefully, it's mostly PR coverage of MADD that concludes by announcing they'll have a candlelight vigil the following Monday. At best, he's barely notable for WP:ONEEVENT, the death of his wife. Everything else offered as a source is truly useless. Msnicki (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Although the creator has worked very hard at this, a careful reading shows that the subject is not notable. While if I should need the subject's services, (he doesn't advertise as some of his colleagues do and I'd not heard of him here-to-fore) I'm happy to have learned of him, he just isn't notable. In fact, this is a very well crafted article, casting a not notable subject in the best possible light. Dloh cierekim 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. This material might be good on his own website. Also, there is abundant evidence against the claim "I am not a paid editor." Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly an advertisement, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This advertisement passes the duck test. - tucoxn\^talk 04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mr. Carey sounds like a wonderful man - a wonderful addition to his community and the kind of upstanding person who really makes the world go around. I wish, in fact, we didn't use the term 'notability' for the simple reason that to many people 'non-notable' sounds like a value judgment that someone isn't important in some ultimate sense. The point is that there is not enough confirmed information in reliable third-party sources to allow for the real creation of a genuine biography. Much credit to Msnicki for working so carefully through the sources to try to find something salvageable here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:26, 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin James Hughes[edit]

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

Looks like an WP:AUTOBIO, missing any third-party sources. Not notable. Otterathome (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has a few credits on IMDb, but no independent reliable sources offered or found in searches of Google and GNews. WP:TOOSOON.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:23, 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 and redirect to The Great British Bake Off. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Wheatley[edit]

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

Article has been moved since nomination:

Biography of a living person who is not notable. BLP1E of winning a TV cake making contest. Speedy delete removed by new user Knights365 (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP-1E. I took the liberty of removing this spamtastic passage: "Since winning the Great British Bake Off Joanne has created her own recipe book 'A Passion for Baking'. This 256 page book shows her love for baking as it includes over a hundred recipes she has developed herself and are suitable for families. This wonderful book would make a lovely present and is avalible from £10.99." Carrite (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Knights365 (talk · contribs) from talk:Joanne Wheatley: "joanne wheatley is an author of two best selling cookery books, a columnist for sainsburys magazine as well as being a tv chef and therefore notable and worthy of a wikipedia entry." (sic). (Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

Merge/ Redirect to Great British Bake Off unless additional sourcing can be added. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself makes only the vaguest claim of notability: winning the 2011 television bake-off. This does not make her a "TV chef", contrary to Knights365's assertion, nor does her single appearance as a guest on What's Cooking. Claims of authorship of two best selling cookbooks would need to be verified, and even then, unless those best sellers have led to significant coverage in independent media, we would not have the basis of a verifiable article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:07, 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 keep, with the distinct possibility of a merge. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riga Merchant Guild[edit]

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

I didn't nominate this, I'm just fixing up another editor's mangled AFD request Pinkbeast (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the rationale is apparently "Deletion No Sufficient or Notable to be added on Wikipedia", by Benjohnson61 (talk · contribs). Ansh6 6 6 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. Deletion Notice Created by Benjohnson61 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The organisation definitely seems to have been notable, though it was apparently more usually known as the Great Guild - for more information, see this, for instance. There is also an article on the guild's former building at Large Guild, Riga - it might be more sensible to have just the one article. PWilkinson (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information on buildings with respective articles and keep information on association as stub per PWilkinson. For comparison Latvian Wikipedia has article on it under lv:Lielā ģilde ~~Xil (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per PWilkinson and Xil. Seems reasonable. Interesting, though, a new editor added a ton of info, poorly formatted, to the top of the page. Ansh6 6 6 19:16, 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. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zambranaing[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. No evidence that this word has any widespread usage. Prod removed without comment by original author. So here we are at AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Google doesn't have much to say on this term, to say the least. Gong show 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zambranaing is legit in the cycling community and is quickly growing. How do you define when something has much to say about something? Enorris83 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything not on Wiki is non-notable. So it will be notable when it's on Wiki Enorris83 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the page and all of the photos of cyclists Zambranaing across the country and even in Portugal. It's going viral! Enorris83 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Things do not become notable because they are on Wikipedia; things are on Wikipedia because they are already notable elsewhere. Basically, if anyone can provide evidence of widespread use of this term, please do so. (Note, a bunch of pictures of cyclists in the countryside is not proof of widespread use of the term; it is merely proof that many cyclists enjoy this type of portrait.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a definition for this type of specific portrait and it is being recognized as zambranaing. What other evidence would you like? It's legit! Check out the EXIF data on the photos. These were all taken recently. It's not a coincidence Enorris83 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zambranaing is a specific photographic pose, widely used throughout the Florida cycling community. Harmless and fun. Whats the big deal ?16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Jimifakawi (talk)
Comment WhereToCrank.Com - The State of Florida's official Mountain Biking Page is discusing #zambranaing More proof Enorris83 (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at least Alex Zambrana seems to exist [8]. Its creation date of today, its strong US-centrism, purported origin on Facebook, all point to WP:MADEUP. By the way, if that photo is by Zambrana, are we sure of its copyright status? Also, if it came from Facebook, there should be a link to where the image came from. Chris857 (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Eclipseracingteam.com just posted about it as well. Copyright status is fine. I have written permission. How is this bothering or so offensive to you guys? There are bigger issues in this world. Keep the page :) It's a riot :)
~~Keep it~~ The original Zambranaing photo was created roughly a month ago by the way and has taken off since.
~~Keep it~~ On MTBR.com as well

The three "keep it"s are all user:216.23.100.126. The sites mentioned are a blog, and various forums posts. Chris857 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris857 Are you really affected by zambranaing? It has been proven that it's going on across the country. Are forums, websites and blogs all pertaining to the activity of zambranaing not enough to validate zambranaing? What else do you people wants? Enorris83 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it Another vote for keeping it. I run Eclipse Racing Team and the blog and am not related to user ENorris83. We have thousands of views per week and we're promoting what has already become a trend in South Florida Cycling. Just as the Critical Mass monthly bike ride has grown from dozens to THOUSANDS of participants, when South Florida gets behind something. It BECOMES a trend. This page resurfacing will be inevitable. This Wiki should stay. EclipseRacing (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)— EclipseRacing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. A neologism with no evidence of notability nor any coverage by independent sources per WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Best wiki in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.247.234 (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC) — 66.229.247.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - WP:NEO. Would have taken this to SPI, but looking closer, I figure that they're different people - the IP that posted 3 keep votes is clearly also the article creator (enorris) logged out. Besides the canvassing, everything seems to be in good faith. Ansh6 6 6 01:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have any coverage in any kind of reliable source, and none of those arguing in its defence have shown any. I doubt even Urban Dictionary would accept something with this level of sourcing, much less Wikipedia. Mogism (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Zambranaing is supposed to be a "fad" but its not. It has been admitted to be only a joke on the MTBR website in the General subforum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.107.177.23 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable WP:NEO. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 23:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any different than tebowing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.247.234 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@66.229.247.234: tebowing is discussed widely in reliable sources, such as Time, NYT, and has a lasting impact, for example, in recognition as an English word and as a feature in a video game. Chris857 (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And with all that, it still doesn't get its own article. Ansh6 6 6 02:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, men and women of the jury, let it be known Tebowing does have it's own article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebowing#Tebowing Enorris83 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Enorris83 does not understand the nature of a Wikipedia redirect page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that tebowing is an established term and has extensive, non-trivial media coverage in reliable sources not connected to the subject. Zambranaing does not. It is a new term with no coverage other than a few forums. freshacconci talk to me 14:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. I can find zero instances of use in reliable sources. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:45, 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. A pile of canvassed SPA votes saying "He's notable" clearly doesn't cut it. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Kedia[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article arrived here via contested WP:PROD. Article concerns a tech entrepreneur. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the guidelines of WP:ANYBIO. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easy call. What we have here is a hagiographic article by a series of WP:SPAs based solely on WP:PRIMARY sources. Googling turns up nothing useful. Done. Msnicki (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough WP:RS coverage to establish notability. 31.203.74.244 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - unless we can get some more solid sources, and some editing by somebody with a better grasp of English (WTF is a "mortgage community", for example? What is a "quinstreet"?). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, all sorts of kids do quickie apps or web sites that come and go. W Nowicki (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep - I am a moderator at the debtcc community. The following is an opinion of the senior members of our community.

Our reasons to vote for a definite keep are:

Vikas kedia runs the largest community of people in debt and mortgage problems and has declined large offers to be bought out. He has contributed his work to open source and he has also given back to his alma-mater with the goal of spreading education in India.
When Msnicki and ip address 31.203.74.244 had voted at that time there were 4 references. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikas_Kedia&oldid=569875522 We have added more references and now there are 11 references.
Taking suggestions from Orangemike I have gone back and added 7 secondary sources and tried to fix the language issues.
Nowicki in his vote claims that Vikas Kedia's work might be "Quickie apps or web sites that come and go". The debtcc community has been around for 10 years and at this time is the largest community of people trying to get debt free in america. The mortgage community has been around for 8 years and is the largest community of people with mortgage problems in America.

We have been debating if we should ask the senior members of the debtcc community to come and cast individual votes. The wikipedia guidelines says that the number of votes do not count but the reasoning accompanying the votes count. So for the time being we have decided not to ask the senior members of the community to cast individual votes but rather we are letting our opinion be known in collective through me as the spokesperson. Paulmergel (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)— Paulmergel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Asking for others to come vote your way is called WP:CANVASSING and you should not do it. Re: the new sources, the only ones that might count are the Times of India and Santa Cruz Sentinal articles. But both appear to be reporting local news of passing interest. The former reports the subject was to attend a competition as a student but does not report what happened and whether he won. (Apparently, he did not.) The second reports that he was starting a website, hardly a remarkable event. These are run-of-the-mill local news stories and fall short of what it takes to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Person is notable and well creative. His work shows motivation to others.(Gokulchandola (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC))Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Gokulchandola (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep and improve, article meets Wikipedia guidelines. --Wikifan115 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we are debating here if it meets the guidelines. Arguments would be more persuading if they include evidence rather than just an assertion. I would point out that I certainly "get debt free" and in fact live in the same county as mentioned in the source where the web site was based in 2004 (although the current web site claims the company is "based in Nevada" and the person's LinkedIn page says Chicago?). I would say almost everyone I know also wants to "get debt free" too, but none of us have ever heard of this person. The claim that it is "the largest community" of such people is only asserted by itself, twice. We can assume good faith that it thinks this claim is true, but without any independent source, all the article should say is that the web site "says it is the largest community...". I did look at the "US Observer" and was amused: hardly a reliable and unbiased source. Certainly confidential term sheets are not verifiable. I would also observe that the web site links to this Wikipedia article as part of its self-promotion. The article conveniently leaves out how the web site is funded. In fine print it says that the information about people who register is sold. Also for what it is worth, here is one review, albeit biased in its own way. There have been a few (presumably minor) complaints at the BBB. This could very well be a noble group, but until it or the other ventures started by the subject get some independent coverage, maybe it could be userfied. Also ran across this site which also links to the Wikipedia article in its self-promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that this article is for self-promotion but anyway, the subject is notable per coverage (see how media is talking about him). We can meet in some other arguments but that means article should be improved, not deleted. What do you think ? --Wikifan115 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan115, you've asserted the subject is notable based on guidelines and coverage but the problem is that you haven't identified either the sources or the provisions of the guidelines you rely on to make that claim. So far as I can tell, there are no sources to establish notability that might satisfy any of the guidelines, so saying it's there somewhere but not identifying where really isn't very helpful. Msnicki (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could find them if you had searched. Here are some secondary sources talking about Vikas Kedia :

Interview with Mr. Vikas Kedia, CEO, InterNext Technologies Inc
Ceeta Industries appoints Vikas Kedia as compliance officer
Vikas Kedia, My CEO, My Mentor
Vikas Kedia believes “Dont Just Dream, strive to make it Real” – BuddyInspiration --Wikifan115 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think only MoneyControl is a good source from the above links. But 2 issues with that link: (a) it does not seem to be news, rather just a press release; (b) is that really this same Vikas Kedia? It could be another person with the same name. - Aurorion (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another pass through the article and it's not so clear cut as I first thought. The subject of the article is discussed in a couple of of solid reliable sources as an exemplar of the kind of entrepreneur that India should be cultivating: the story of him turning down a (moderately) high-paying job to start his own business is repeated in most of the sources I'm seeing. However, the best sources are often just a single paragraph. I'm not seeing the depth or breadth of coverage that would justify an article. So for now I'll keep my delete !vote and file this under WP:TOOSOON. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability criteria. The few sources provided do not seem to be very reliable. - Aurorion (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : HERE is a book excerpt talking about the subject of this Wiki page and HERE is a mention in a well-know Indian online newspaper, hoping that an administrator will take it into consideration. --Wikifan115 (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep - A well composed article with many reliable references. Above all a notable person. This page can be made better and improved. #KiranAN123 (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)— KranAN123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that KiranAN123 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Definite Keep and improve - I agree to wikifan. It requires improvement. I am a beginner and in my opinion the person is notable due to creating IIMB Kite.This was the first initiative on part of IIMs (the best business school in India) to put its classes online. This is the information I googled out. The reference SSRC students will get a peep into cyberspace clearly defines that Vikas Kedia is notable. — Manishvyas13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC).Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Manishvyas13 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment As we have several first-time editors here, it might be useful to point out that notability is a term of art here with a significantly different meaning than the usual sense of the word. Quoting from WP:ANYBIO:
Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
Yes, the subject of this article has been mentioned in a handful of publications, and I'm happy to stipulate that he's a good person doing useful work. However, as none of his companies have wikipedia articles (due to their lack of notability) and he himself has not garnered significant coverage, I still don't consider him notable in the wikipedia sense. I'd be happy to reconsider given an argument based on our notability guidelines. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think this article should be deleted as this man is quite notable. I have heard of his business as well as his charity work. To me, this article seems as if it deserves to be om Wikipedia :) AzzuriItalia (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC) — AzzuriItalia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that AzzuriItalia (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Delete - is this Vikas Kedia some cult leader? Coverage in very few reliable sources, and that too trivial. But lots of fans/followers trying their best to prove that he is notable. Very weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.34.163.139 (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reading the entire discussion I think this article should be kept for updation and should be improved. I think this man is quite notable. I found one evidence about the article in "Times of India". Though it is equivalent to "Los Angeles Times" or "New York Times" or "The Guardian" yet as per Wikipedia notability guidelines only one reference won't work. The article need a handful of references from "third-party" or "independent sources" so that one can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.A lot of improvement required. Royal Heart 08:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royale.heart (talk • contribs) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Royale.heart (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Keep Vikas Kedia is a notable person and his article should go live. Wiki admins should mark him as notable. He has helped many people get out of debt. His work is notable and could be easily seen in this reference of Times of India. Selling his idea to Indian Mafia in Silicon Valley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffsmile (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Geoffsmile (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment. Most of us weren't born yesterday. Anyone who's spent any time at all in AfDs knows you do not get so many WP:JUSTAVOTE participants with so little previous editing history unless they've been WP:CANVASSED. Msnicki (talk) 15:03, 1 September 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) 21:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Sneddon (kidnap victim)[edit]

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

This was originally tagged for speedy deletion by an IP using the rationale

Millions of people walk away from their families or their situations every year, and the scenario, "this person was abducted by north korean agents" belongs roughly to the same level of credibility that NASA is faking Moon Landings. People who leave their families typically do so for a reason, but rather than face intra-family realities, of course anybody can just assert 'north korean operatives' magically reached into China, hiding their work from all five chinese police agencies, and spirited away the American to lala land.

I deleted the page per WP:CSD#A7, but then Michitaro recreated the talk page and provided a link to claims of the Japanese government that support the kidnapping theory [9]. Actually that is not the case though since the WSJ merely writes that "Pyongyang has admitted abducting Japanese citizens." I have nevertheless restored the whole article, and we should now decide about the level of notability. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps De728631 does not have access to the full article, but I quote: "Speaking in Tokyo last month about Mr. Sneddon's disappearance, Keiji Furuya, Japanese minister of state for the abduction issue, told me: "It is most probable that a U.S. national has been abducted to North Korea."" The article continues: "The charge that an American citizen was likely kidnapped by North Korea is noteworthy in and of itself. It is even more so coming from a cabinet-rank member of the Japanese government about a citizen of another country." I should add that I do not have any opinion yet on this AfD (though I would need convincing that this clears the issues raised in WP:BIO1E), I only objected to the use of speedy deletion based on the pure conjecture of an anonymous IP, when major news agencies like the WSJ had been reporting on this event. Michitaro (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My low regard for "Victims-and-Perps" pseudobiography notwithstanding, this pretty clearly runs afoul of BLP-1E. Even the question of whether the disappearance was a kidnapping is a matter of dispute, despite the sensationalistic article title. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like Carrite; I am not seeing how this is going to overcome BIO1E, a mention in other articles relating kidnaps by Pyongyang would be sufficient. LGA _talk^edits 23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the article writers is reverting the fact that the alleged kidnapping victim disappeared some five thousand kilometers from the North Korean border. China is a huge country. It's like attributing a missing family dog in Georgia to a Montana mountain lion. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not one of the article writers. I am merely trying to maintain the standards of Wikipedia, and thus welcome this AfD. I should note, however, that your "logic" lacks support. Of the kidnappings the North Korean government has admitted to, several took place in Europe: [10]. Please stop trying to create your own reasoning and begin offering sources to support your claims. Michitaro (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping an individual from a First World nation is an entirely different can of worms from kidnapping an individual from the Golden Triangle. If I am a diplomatically protected government and I stuff you into a Mercedes S600, I can transport you to anywhere in the world using diplomatic privilege. Unfortunately, Yunnan China is some five thousand kilometeres of unpaved roads away from North Korea. I have traveled extensively throughout China, and I can report the roads and transportation network is primitive--and furthermore, there are police-camera checkpoints every forty kilometers. The family's thesis that their son was kidnapped by north Korean agents is roughly as credible as the idea that bug-eyed monsters from Mars are beaming radio waves into our heads. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. Isn't Japan a First World nation? Hasn't it suffered many kidnappings, including some that N. Korea admits took place in Europe? And 5000 km of dirt roads? You have to travel near Beijing to get to N. Korea from Yunnan. So that area is all dirt roads? What about planes and trains? Others on the AfD have offered good arguments based on the rules. Spurious argumentation does not help. Michitaro (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I am saying is that it is easier to kidnap a person from a First World nation. If I wanted to take out somebody in the U.S., I could simply fly to their closest Southwest airlines served airport, rent two or three vehicles for a week to establish their movement patterns, and then at the most appropriate location, jump out and stuff them into a car trunk. The parents' thesis that their disappeared son, who disappeared in a region of the world marked by high mountains and dangerous gorges as well as some of the world's most dangerous heroin growing areas, was kidnapped by north korean agents in order to teach English in their universities (which Charles Jenkins points out, is a job extremely easy to sabotage; you just fake accents or teach gibberish), belongs to some spurious category of green-Mars aliens and dead Elvis sightings. The Chinese security forces maintain rigorous control over their trains and planes, and would not ignore the odd sight of a drugged Westerner being accompanied by North Korean government operatives. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue really revolves around the conditions outlined in WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. If one believes there should be an article, should it be about the victim or about the event? "When an individual plays a major role in a minor event" (as is the case here) "it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event." Currently there is only an article on the person. But in this case, the individual is only known through the event, and is also a "low profile individual" according to WP:BLP1E. This, and the low significance of the event, seems to satisfy the three conditions of WP:BLP1E, which then recommends only mentioning the individual in the event article. But the problem we face here is judging whether there really has been an event. The anonymous IP's arguments that such an event is impossible are poorly supported if not spurious. Given past kidnappings, it is clearly in the realm of possibility and the press coverage that exists entertains the possibility as a realistic one. But even the WSJ article, which strongly leans towards asserting the kidnapping really happened, does not declare it outright. BLP1E moves us to merge the individual into the event article, but for Wikipedia to have an article on an event that may not have happened--and even provide an article title that definitely asserts it did happen--is problematic and touches on issues of WP:V and WP:NPOV. One would need considerably more coverage out there to justify an article on an event that may not have happened. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. Michitaro (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per A7. Article does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E - not a suitable search term (and invites confusion with a totally different David Sneddon), the sources might be good for citing something like North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens, which might be worth converting into a more general "abductions" article. Not an A7, unless you somehow think being kidnapped by North Korean spies is just a run of the mill thing that happens to any old non-notable person. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 29 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. Even discarding the obvious cancassed SPAs. I don't believe there is any consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. David Hornik[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable columnist, no sources about him found in a search. Prod removed by editor in first edit ever without comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. David Hornik is an invaluable columnist, writer, and a researcher. A super reporter. It would be a travesty to delete his page!!!, 04:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hornik is an important columnist whose work appears constantly on two influential, much-trafficked websites, Frontpage Magazine and PJ Media. He is also the author of an outstanding book on Israel, which, published earlier this year, has won critical acclaim as displayed on its Amazon page. Hornik is an important participant in the discourse on Israel and the Middle East in particular.Ace edotpr (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Ace edotpr (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Ace edotpr (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace edotpr (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment. He's certainly prolific, and he does get mentioned by other writers with similar views. Search is complicated because most of the hits are for his own work; and because there's another David Hornik who's a Silicon Valley investment banker. I found the following: A recent interview of Hornik in The Jewish Press: [11]. Reviews of his book in Algemeiner Journal [12]; American Thinker [13]; the Jewish Ledger [14], --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 (multiple reviews). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course P. David Hornik should have a Wikipedia entry! He is a significant writer for FrontPage Magazine and for PJ Media (two hugely influential American sites)--and for various other online sites. He writes about facets of Jewish life in Israel and the complex politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict--as well as other subjects such as conservatism, Judaism, and the writing life. A recent review of his book, *Choosing Life in Israel,* appeared at FrontPageMag; an interview with him by Jamie Glazov also appears there. He is a well informed commentator, crucial for anyone wanting to understand Israel's position in world affairs.Janice fiamengo (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hornik is a prolific, skillful writer who should definitely have a Wikipedia entry! Not only are his political analyses of the complex situation in the Middle East powerful and insightful (as also manifested in his outstanding book Choosing Life in Israel), but his versatile writings on numerous other topics such as music, near-death experiences, and Judaism are always engaging and astute.Tkrtgnr (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik is a superbly well-informed and very articulate practitioner of the higher journalism in Israel. Of course he merits recognition in Wikipedia. Edward Alexander, Professor emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaengl (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Distinctly borderline case, but there do appear to be just about enough reviews in apparently reliable sources for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik definitely should remain on Wikipedia. He is one of the most articulate spokespersons for a significant point of view on Israel's conflict with the Arabs, not largely heard and coming directly from Israel. His articles are cogent and well researched. He is a prolific writer for on line sites like Frontpage and Pajamas Media and covers a range of issues. He is not only notable but is going to become even more so now that he has begin to write books as well. Gidmeister (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik is a "boots-on-the-ground," articulate and HONEST voice from Israel. One may disagree with his opinion, but it is disingenuous to argue with the facts he presents. Should he be removed it would be a disservice to the truth...and isn't that what Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be all about?Newmediajournal (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik has a long and distinguished record of commentary on major websites. Disagree or not with his views, he has an enviable record of accurate and pertinent analysis. It would be a disservice to those seeking knowledge to delete his Wikipedia entry. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the breadth of information it provides on account of the enormous number of entries available. Deletion of his entry would serve no useful public purpose.TheSirdar (TheSirdar) (TheSirdar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSirdar (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hornik is sufficiently prolific on frequently-visited sites for there to be substantial interest on the part of numerous readers in obtaining information about him on Wikipedia. The entry should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Shafran (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is incomprehensible that deletion of David Hornik's page was even considered. He is one of the most respected Israeli journalists whose columns are reprinted and circulated throughout the internet. They bring a unique perspective to discussion of the Middle East, because he has lived both in America and Israel.Furthermore, his book "Chossing Life In Israel" and the excellent columns on Judaism, history and religion are outstanding.rsk17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubceck (talk • contribs)

Hornik's book is also reviewed here [15] and he's interviewed about the book here [16].Ace edotpr (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC, and the book is also featured here [17].Ace edotpr (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per above keeps. At the same time, I am troubled by the number of editors with very few edits to their name who have somehow appeared here. That suggests sockpuppetry. See WP:SOCK. And if it continues, I recommend an investigation, and that any editors found to be socking be blocked. But that aside, this does appear to meet our notability guideline, even if just barely.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no sockpuppetry here. People who appreciate the importance of David Hornik's writing, some of them self-identified as writers themselves, have taken a bit of time to say why his writing is important and why he is a significant and well-known contributor to the discourse on some major subjects.Ace edotpr (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When so many newbie editors find an AfD, in my experience it is almost always socking. Given the protest by one of them, that seems to be inviting a sock investigation -- if any are found to be socks, I would think they should be blocked and their !votes appropriately discounted.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviews in self-published, fringe, and otherwise unreliable sources do not count towards notability, and he doesn't have the coverage without them. The closing admin will of course ignore the obvious sockpuppets/meatpuppets. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Press, Algemeiner Journal, American Thinker and Jewish Ledger are reliable sources, for Wikipedia purposes. They have editorial control, fairly large subscription bases, they would easily pass a reliable source review, they are among the main Jewish conservative outlets in the USA. Unless you think "Jewish conservative" in total = fringe, but we don't discriminate based on that sort of criteria. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED, web content with no claim of significance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterzillaz[edit]

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing this fan work, just YouTube and other self-published sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 12:55, 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) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy and Finance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In the four months since the last AFD, no improvement/sources have been forthcoming. The previous rationale still stands: "Non-notable journal. Despite what is claimed on its homepage, not included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (see http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Hence: Delete Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator and any indication of notability on this journal's web site appears to be inaccurate. Furthermore, a Google search for this particular title does not appear to produce any hits for this journal (please see [18], and [19]). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, the journal has an impact factor of 0.448, therefore is indexed by Journal Citation Reports, therefore is notable per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although the publisher's website is terrible, and blatantly copies Wikipiedia in several places... Can someone confirm that it indeed has an impact factor? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the fact that this journal copies Wikipedia articles (which I didn't know) tells me this is a sham publication. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something very interesting. I just entered the first eight digits of both ISSN numbers into TR's Master Journal list. 1555-6492 (electronic) did not work. However, 1019-3316 (print) did work: here. Then I tried a Google search for the TR listed journal's name and have come to a Springer website here. Please notice the print ISSN and the electronic ISSN and compare to the subject of this AFD. I am now thinking that the subject of the AFD, the so-called academic journal "Economy and Finance" is a hoax. Also, the Wikipedia article is probably a hoax. In fact the focus and coverage of the legitimate journal is very different from the coverage of the subject of this AFD. I think the legit journal also has a Russian web site. I will back to you on that. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have access to the Sciences and Social Sciences editions of the Journal Citation Reports and have checked (again): This journal is emphatically not included in it and has no impact factor assigned by Thomson Reuters. Note that recently, several sites have sprung up that assign "impact factors", based on non-stated criteria, but that have nothing to do with TR. Entering the ISSN into the TR Master Journal list (see link given by Steve above) does give a hit, but for a different journal (named HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, with an IF of 0.214). Note that the ISSN given on the journal website of Economy and Finance is "1019-3316-34", whereas the Herald's ISSN is "1019-3316". Entering the EaF ISSN into the OCLC database gives no hit, entering the version withou "-34" at the end leads, again, to the Herald. Hence, I see no reason at this pint to withdraw the now and would like to ask Headbomb to have a look at the stuff that Steve and I dug up. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete Yeah, something seems shady here. Failure to establish the IF through TR, combined with the other stuff, means absolutely nothing from the official website is to be trusted, and the journal fails to meet WP:NJOURNALS supported by WP:V. That's certainly grounds for deletion, and we should look into any other journal from that "publisher". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable given all of the above factors. PianoDan (talk) 14:33, 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 redirect to Khojaly massacre. And cover the topic there in a more condensed manner. The "keep" opinions do not address the issue of notability. Sandstein 11:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly massacre commemoration[edit]

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

The topic is not notable enough to go into an encyclopedia. The artcile basically is a listing when which government anywhere in the world has commemorated the Khojaly massacre. Meaning, as commemoration events are taking place each year, consequently the informatoin will be doubled each year with other commemoration resolutions following. It is like creating an article about which governments, organizations, groups of the world etc. have ever commemorated the Holocaust and listing all these events each year like a directory. Markus2685 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khojaly massacre. This is a case of bloat, all that is needed is a small section in the main article. LGA _talk^edits 23:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Markus2685 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This content was split into a separate article based on consensus on the talk of the article with the nominator. [20] Now all of a sudden he wants this info deleted? Or merged back into the article it was split from? Where's the logic here? Grandmaster 23:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should have never been spit off in the first place, if it was considered as to much for the main article, it should have been edited down to a more manageable size. LGA _talk^edits 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It should not have been spit off. But unfortunately this seemed to be the only solution as other edits like deleting parts of it or minimizing the section were rigorously rejeceted by User Grandmaster. And now, as it is spit off, as you said, it has become a case of bloat.--Markus2685 (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged back, but since the number of countries, US states and international organizations acknowledging the massacre grows day by day, I thought it would make sense to have a separate article, where all this info could be placed without taking space in the main article. This idea had a support of the nominator, who created the article, which he now proposes to delete. Grandmaster 00:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it would not make sense to keep it, just summarise it, for example the whole "Countries" section can be condensed into about 2 sentences; the Remembrance section gives the impression of being padded out to get as many wiki links or name drops in as possible; the job of the encyclopaedia is to summarise not repeat verbatim. LGA _talk^edits 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Lots of countries, international organizations, states of US and famous public figures commemorated this massacre, their number increases day by day. There are similar articles on Wikipedia (e.g. Remembrances of the Mountain Meadows massacre), therefore it has to be separate article. Sincerely, Anastasia Bukhantseva 08:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khojaly massacre --Երևանցի ^talk 03:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Khojaly massacre. And as correctly noticed by User LGA this is a case of bloat. But before redirecting it should be edited down to a more manageable size.--Markus2685 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a growing article that was recently created and interestingly so, on the insistence of the nominator, who just two months ago said in a discussion that he did not mean "deleting [it] completely from Wikipedia" and that "the right solution would be [to] create a separate article". And now that this article has the potential to grow without being excessively given attention to in the main article Khojaly Massacre (as the international attention increasingly focuses on the event), it has suddenly been nominated for deletion. The article is not meant to include parliament resolutions only, there are many social and cultural events to commemorate a tragedy. Parishan (talk) 21:36, 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 speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. George Galal Abd Elsayed[edit]

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

No genuine notability, but sufficient has been asserted to disqualify from CSD. There are references of a sort, which disqualifies it from BLPPROD. So here we are at AfD. Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 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 no consensus. There is narrowly no consensus for deletion. Most participants agree that the article is of poor quality and should, if at all, exist under a title such as Growth of religion. However, many "delete" opinions focus on issues that are fixable by editing or other actions other than deletion, such as editor misconduct. That's why I assign less weight to them and find that we don't have consensus to delete yet. If the article is not improved, a second deletion nomination might be successful. Sandstein 11:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to be the fastest-growing religion[edit]

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

Non-encyclopaedic topic: we don't have "Claims to be ..." or "Claims to have ..." articles. Non-notable topic: 0 hits on JSTOR; 12 hits on Google books. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not encyclopedic; likely to be a coatrack for poorly-sourced claims and counter-claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs)
Undecided - it is certainly a place for arguments yet it is also a very watched page with 6-800 visits per day and the idea of the page certainly seems notable. I think "claims" speaks to the difficulty of the topic. Search Google scholar for "fastest growing religion" and you get 2070 hits - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22fastest+growing+religion%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34 - vs 1600 if you just add the word "claims" - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=claims+%22fastest+growing+religion%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34 yet it is also obvious it is talking about claims. Wikipedia has tackled controversial claims and reactions to claims (global warming for example) so it seems this could be done. It is just going to be a lot of work. But I'm open to see what people say. --Smkolins (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article has already seen more than its fair share of edit warring and unsourced or improperly sourced propaganda, from all sides, being used more as a forum than as anything else. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Rename to "Growth of Religion" per evidence cited by User:Smkolins. Also the section hasn't seen much edit warring in the last few days since I came in and supplied scholarly sources on the controversial sections and discussed criteria for source inclusion (only two persons however contributed). Idiotic edits just need to be reverted, as is the case with most articles. It seems like a relevant subject but needs to be kept within the realms of the theme at hand, and there's plenty of sources on it. This includes polls and survey's. The public is also very much interested in this article it seems. It has about 23,000+ hit per month (270,000+ a year). Based on relevance and sources alone it's an obvious speedy keep. Also that citation nom gave for Google Books is incorrect. It has 36 books listed not 12. The Pew Forum has also extensively done research on the topic in recent years too. NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link, count the books. How many do you see? Perhaps you forgot to exclude all the "books" that are in fact just rehashes of the Wikipedia article? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This and this discount your assertions. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename growth of religion. There is an encyclopedic article here, although there needs to be some work to get it into shape, particularly a full rewrite of the intro. This is part of the normal editing process, however. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, rework per above to remove the encyclopedia-inappropriate "claims"-type content. Ansh6 6 6 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH: arbitrary cross-section of a certain aspect of a certain class ob objects. While each article about a religion may and should have its own section about its growth, but wikipedia is not a place to generate pissing contests, unless there are scholarly sources which deal with this particular pissing contest (growth speed). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the content should be based on measurable change in independently conducted surveys of self-identification among the general public, not any claims made from within a particular religious complex. Also if kept, the title should reflect mention of religions mathematically demonstrated to be declining (which is equally noteworthy) so the word "growth" might not be adequate. ―cobaltcigs 15:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename(?) A really ignorant suggestion. Obviously the title is there to bring some sort of clarity to a very subjective and often delicate entry. But it would be more encyclopedic to remove that part. It could possible be merged with "Religion" itself as a subsection of growth while also including a subsection on historic growth. 37.123.149.65 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article is a MESS, some religious editors tried to promote their religion priority (Islam is the most witnessed example). Some editors don't respect each other, they delete all negative point of views toward their religion and keep positive (sometimes it's very biased) information. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an excuse for deletion. Biased issues can be discussed on talk page. Although I agree that in the past certain editors did not wish to engage in neutrality. But they have mostly been dealt with. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely. This incarnation of the argumentum ad populum is a vital element of religious propaganda. Its persistent use is important evendence that religious movements must rely upon logical fallacies to perpetuate their influence upon the sort of people who are inclined to fall for logical fallacies. Plus, by any percentile measure the fastest growing religion is Pandeism, which has gone from zero to sixty!! Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of religious populations, and change the title of that article somewhat to better reflect the change in its content. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Definition section of the article itself indicates why the article should not be kept.--101.162.156.11 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of religious populations which is the closest article that we have. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and don't redirect to the list of religious populations, since it's not a likely redirect. Different people's opinions of which religion is growing fastest might deserve a little attention in those religions' articles or in articles about religious history or comparative religion, but they definitely don't deserve a separate article. I'd agree with a keep if this were to be rewritten completely as a "growth of religion" article, but I'd suggest to the potential authors that they simply start completely anew. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be rewritten, probably by basing it on the article as it was about 2009. [21] Don't delete it as it will then be very difficult to create it again.Mike Young (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nyttend and Angelo De La Paz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nyttend AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little of this content actually addresses the subject of the article, which religion is the world's fastest growing? There are a number of problems here. First, the sections on Mormonism or Hinduism address the growth rates of those religions, but they don't make any kind of claim that these religions are the fastest growing in the world. Second, in many places the article discusses the growth rates of specific subgroups (my favorite: Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in England's jails) but how does that effect global growth rates? Third, the section on Christianity lumps many different denominations together. The subheading of "Christianity" appears to be discussing claims that Christianity as a whole is the fastest-growing religion, but in fact much of the text, particularly the third paragraph, discusses cases where one denomination of Christianity is growing at the expense of another. Fourth, what's the relevance of all this stuff about forced conversion in the first centuries of Islam? Fifth, I looked at the ARIS findings[22] and the summary report doesn't even list Deism as a separate group, it just lumps it in with New Religious Movements and Other. One wonders whether or not the growth rates of Deism in the survey are statistically significant. This article is just badly conceived and badly executed. WP:NUKEANDPAVE. GabrielF (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These concerns don't address the question of whether this is an encyclopedic topic. Everyone agrees the article has major issues, but if we delete it now it will almost certainly reappear again under a different title. WP:TNT and renaming are more productive solutions than deletion. There are academic published sources, such as the WRD and WCD, that provide information on average annual growth and absolute annual growth. (I don't know whether these databases also list conversion estimates.) If other editors know of databases that provide current and projected religious statistics, we should include those as well. It seems clear to me the topic is encyclopedic and could be adequately referenced. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with GabrielF, this whole article is really based on propaganda, especially on the Islam, and also others. It's not presenting the actual value, and if we start writing that how many have become apostate from the religion it wouldn't be possible to get agreement of all active editors, because much of these articles are edited by the supporter of these propaganda. The predictions are also very irrelevant that have been given inside this page. Better to get rid of it. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but revert back to earlier version Although this article is constantly edited, and even when it is in a poor shape, it is much better for the general reader than not having anything. At least it counters the "Islam is the fastest growing religion" zombie fact. The problem comes that many claims in things such as the Guinness book of records or copied out. There are some verifiable claims, such as Australian Census and ARIS data that give some insights.
Also, this article is much worse than it was when first written. It seems to have degenerated from what was quite a good article in 2009 into a list of competitive facts. Look at some earlier revisions for better versions of this article. Somebody could take this one [23] and revise it adding any relevant / better facts from the present article and we'd have something pretty good. (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly an encyclopedic topic. The article needs to be reworked and probably renamed per above. WP:ORIGINAL and WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns are unfounded. There are clearly reliable published sources in the article, such as the World Religion Database and the Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. The WRD, in particular, provides information on current and projected average annual growth rates and absolute growth rates. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GabrielF. We need some WP:TNT, but I won't be particularly upset if no one builds it again. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oseodion Aburime, Alex Oriakhi Jr., and Hakeem Olajuwon[edit]

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

I'm not even sure what's going on here; it seems like a badly written fork. Hakeem Olajuwon is obviously notable, but the other two guys don't seem to be (and it doesn't help that the section abot Olajuwon is blank). Merging to Olajuwon's article doesn't seem like a good idea, imo. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in much better shape now, but I still don't see the point of the repeated information. There really isn't anything here that isn't already in the individuals' respective articles. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is stream of consciousness gibberish. BTW, Alex Oriakhi is a notable basketball player. But he has his own article. Rikster2 (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic WP:OR. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Could look like a connection to Oseodion Aburime (twice deleted) and Christopher Oseodion Aburime I (trice deleted). I have made Bbb23 aware of the connection to Uru Esan ...A Dialect of Bini Language and Ebe Ota ...The Ishan Dictionary.

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 incubate. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jagga Jasoos. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jagga Jasoos[edit]

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

Film has not entered production yet, and the cast is based on pure speculation by the Indian media. smarojit ^HD 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:38, 23 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 09:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film is expected to go on floors in the month of October (2013). So, TOOSOON. --Tito☸Dutta 09:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Tito☸Dutta 12:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate: Following the discussion below. Tito☸Dutta 12:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:NFF-- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete and redirect title for now to Anurag Basu#Films. Allow undeletion or recreation once principal filming has commenced. While WP:NFF suggests no article until then, it is easy enough to determine that this topic is pushing nicely at WP:GNG. That being the case, and under consideration of WP:FFEXCEPTIONS and existing policy I have included sourced information at the suggested target. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay with Incubation Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving to wikipedia space for restarting at the appropriate time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that User:Dr. Blofeld's implied incubation makes sense. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree. Though, I would remove the cast member's from Basu's page as they are based on pure speculation by the Indian media. We should wait for an official confirmation before listing them. --smarojit ^HD 12:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per policy, we can share what is already offered in reliable sources, speculative or not... the requirement for inclusion somewhere IS verifiability in proper sources, not truth or not of what is being reported in the sources. That section in the Basu article could/should be modified to say something like "sources report actors being considered for this film include..." so as not to intend the speculation be offered as fact. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now Addressed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree. Thanks. :) --smarojit ^HD 04:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am agree too!- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:22, 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) 05:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYRV[edit]

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

Another hoax article of ABS-CBN AM station is rising. I do suspected that this is not really existed in the said area. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 00:51, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 05:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to be a hoax. Andrew³²⁷ 13:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax station, does not exist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:47, 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) 05:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYIL[edit]

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

I do believe this is a hoax as well, aside from DWNP and DYPE articles Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 00:47, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 05:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to be a hoax. Andrew³²⁷ 13:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax station, does not exist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hoax. This station doesn't even exist. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 23:09, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Filipiak[edit]

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

Jazz guitarist Carl Filipiak is mentioned in some lists but does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). No charting song or album, no non-trivial coverage dedicated to him in national publications, no major award, etc. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick check gives at least... Billboard (January 13, 1996; see [24]); The Washington Post (January 22, 1993) p. 9. "Poppy Jazz, Reggae From Local Artists"; JazzTimes (various; see list at [25]); Baltimore Sun (September 19, 1991; see [26]); (March 13, 2008; "Putting His Spin on Music"; see [27]). Not exactly Pat Metheny, but something to build a case for Criterion 1. EddieHugh (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage that could have been easily found before nominating, e.g. 5 Allmusic reviews, Jazz Times, Billboard, The Washington Post, WPost again, and again, yet again, Baltimore Sun. Most of these are on the first page of Google News archive results. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage found by the two above editors looks to be enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Gong show 19:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Currently has album "Live at the Cat's Eye" on the first page of best sellers for jazz fusion on Amazon. Amazon: Jazz Fusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.21.56 (talk) 22:39, 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 speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per, "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surfdome[edit]

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

This page advertises the company and the persons employed at the company. There is no substance to the article as it is based on previous plans and is instead just advertising the company. Wsthompson (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Wsthompson (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:56, 9 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to meet G11 and/or A7. Non-notable, references seem to be all either NON RS, company provided PR, or about a non-notable award being given to the company. Caffeyw (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading - it does actually appear to meet both G11 and A7. I've tagged it as such Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:43, 23 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!*} 03:43, 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 keep. Recent work to the article has now left it in a viable state, per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned United Birthparents[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The article contains no independent sources, and searching has failed to produce any substantial coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I undeleted this as a contested PROD at the request of new user CUB.Curator (talk · contribs), and then stubbed it because the remaining content was too closely modelled on the organization's Facebook page. I have explained to the user that the issue is notability and advised them, in view of obvious COI, not to edit the article directly but to add any independent references they can provide to the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. A7 Caffeyw (talk) 07:16, 16 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!*} 03:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. THIS is actually lifted from Christine Adamec and William Pierce, The Encyclopedia of Adoption, 2nd Edition, published by Facts On File, Inc.,2000, for example, which is rock-solid. The argument of A7 is specious. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS is from the Adoption History Project at the University of Oregon, which is the work of Ellen Herman, associate professor of history. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CUB organization also receives coverage in Jayne Askin, Search: A Handbook for Adoptees and Birthparents. (ABC-CLIO, 1998). CUB appears to be one of two leading national groups advocating for birthparents' rights. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of CUB also receives extensive coverage in Rickie Solinger, Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States. Hill and Wang, 2001. See pp. 107-120 and passim. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've done some work on the piece (which was started way back in 2006, by the way, not as a recent bit of promotion by a single purpose editor). The A7 complaint should melt away now. Not a perfect piece, needs to be sourced more precisely (page numbers) and expanded, but it's on the right track now, presumably. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is NOT a promo for the founder nor organization's web presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjaffe10 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 August 2013
Comment - members of the organization are working on their giant learning curve of wiki-tech issues. Outside sources recognize the organization including a comment from Dan Rather Reports Facebook HERE and Harvard Library HERE More outside source references coming. This reference is in WIKI Bjaffe10 (talk) 22:27, 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) 05:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TestMP[edit]

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

Quick Google search shows no WP:RSes by the fifth screen page. Only reference on the article is self-published. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, reads as advertisement for the software. Couple of line appear clearly copied directly from company sales material. ie You will be able, etc. A7 and/or G11 Caffeyw (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. SmackoVector (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 16 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!*} 03:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete No WP:RS via google, google books or google scholar. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:25, 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) 21:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MixERP[edit]

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

non notable software. References given are either primary or a blog. Google searches provide nothing substantial on this application. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 12:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 18:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the author of this article and I believe this article need not be deleted from Wikipedia. Firstly, the tone of the article is neutral and all the information is verifiable as all the necessary references have been listed now. Yes it is true that there is no substantial third party reference to the subject of the article and that is so because the application is still not officially released and is currently under development process. Moreover, if one can visit CodePlex and do some research, you will notice that MixERP is the most active project among all the "ERP" projects being hosted over at codeplex. [28] Nothing is misleading and the article was created only for informative purposes. Nabinked (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet WP:NSOFT? Or WP:GNG? The lack of independent coverage is the issue. noq (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier, there is definitely serious lack of third party coverage of the product but it isn't completely non-existent either. For instance, the official twitter account of "Planet PostgreSQL", which apparently has over 4500 followers,recently tweeted one of the article explaining how MixERP has been powered by PostgreSQL server [29]. Now, for an application which is not even officially released yet, that is definitely a notable feat and shows the importance of the project. Moreover, WP:GNG also clearly states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame or popularity " . So, just because the product has not been popularly mentioned all over the internet, doesn't imply that it isn't important enough to be included in Wikipedia. I expect careful consideration of all aspects before making any hasty decisions. Nabinked (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've misinterpreted that line from the GNG. What that's supposed to mean is that just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's notable, and vice versa. For example, a lot of memes aren't covered by reliable sources and are therefore not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, but they are popular nonetheless. On the other hand, stuff like my main area of expertise, articles on roads, may not be the most popular thing that everyone around the world and on the internet is talking about, but they still have multiple reliable sources covering them, and thus are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. T C N7JM 20:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to my above comment, this software doesn't seem to have any reliable sources covering it. I don't think it passes any of the notability guidelines. T C N7JM 09:50, 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!*} 03:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable sources for this article are scarce. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:43, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pledis Entertainment[edit]

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

Promotional article that relies on primary sources. Has been tagged as promotional for nine months and as poorly sourced for four months, so does not appear to be likely to be improved in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added more primary sources and reliable, secondary sources. Please tell me if there are other things that needs to be improved. User:SmileBlueJay97 (talk) 06:10, 10 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, T C N7JM 09:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Tough to find many independent references in English, but they are the production company for several clearly notable Korean entertainers charting in Korea and Japan as linked in the article. WP:MUSICBIO suggests that releasing two albums with a major label should convey notability on an entertainer, but makes no mention that this notability flows in reverse (that notable entertainers make their label notable). However, there are enough google hits in english to show this record label exists (some in the article already) and our friends at Korean Wikipedia deem the topic [notable] so I say keep. CooperDB (talk) 10:15, 16 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!*} 03:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources recently added to the article, and indicated above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources, number of notable artists on roster. Appears to be significant player in Korea market. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:37, 29 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katana Fighting Series (kickboxing)[edit]

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

Scottish kickboxing organization whose only coverage falls under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER--either fight results or listings of upcoming fights. Jakejr (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the biggest promotion in Scotland, what information do you need to keep the page open? TheDeadRat

(talk) 23:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that this promotion has received significant independent coverage. Routine sports reporting such as fight results and lists of upcoming fights do not show notability. For example, do you have some independent sources to support your statement that this is the biggest promotion in Scotland? That alone wouldn't show notability, but it would be a start towards meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmmm, the big problem we have here is that the majority of the British Press ignore fighting sports because the BBC and other broadcasters don't screen such events. The reasoning use to be that because thai kickboxing wasn't an olympic sport it was deemed unworthy of any coverage. This is where its difficult to obtain written material about the events. The promotion has a show on in November, if we went all out to get some press coverage would this first of all satisfy the criteria and secondly let the article stay open till then? TheDeadRat (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't press coverage of the event, it's significant independent coverage of the organization. You can look at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ROUTINE to get an idea of what kind of coverage will not help show notability and WP:GNG to see what would help. Papaursa (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delay Deletion Article clearly just needs time for additional information. Mdtemp I would question the hurry for the deletion Evening Times (talk) 02:51, 23 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!*} 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this organization. All I found was routine sports coverage of its events. The article has been unchanged for two weeks, so user Evening Times' request for additional time hasn't helped. If this article is deleted, I have no objection to its recreation once notability is establish. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete How do we do that thing where we apply for experienced wikipedia users to update the article? TheDeadRat (talk) 12:16, 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RTMOS (Real-Time Multiprogramming Operating System)[edit]

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

Not much more than a dictionary definition. No example of a RTMOS is given, and the term's significance is unclear. Unsourced and orphaned for some years now. GregorB (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ please. Not even a coherent title with acronym followed by Upper Case etc. Just a combination of two adjectives on a noun, no separate topic here. Embarrassing that it took five years. W Nowicki (talk) 18:47, 17 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!*} 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was an operating system created by General Electric in the late 1960's. There is some info about it in the 1972 article The structure and comparison of three real-time operating systems for process control and the 1974 article about the GEPAC 4000 RTMOS Measurement and Improvement of Memory Allocation in a Process Computer I've found mentions in various other sources. But online references for an old OS like this are sparse. At this point, I think these two articles are sufficient, albeit marginally sufficient, to satisfy the notability requirements for multiple in-depth reliable sources. --Mark viking (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting - reading the initial version of the article, I was under the impression that "RTMOS" is a generic term, and not a particular OS. The article (and its title) could be still be tweaked a bit to fully reflect that. I'll take a closer look shortly. GregorB (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps the article were renamed RTMOS (operating system)? As for whether to keep this, it seems that this is borderline notable. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps just RTMOS (like e.g. DOS)... I agree, could still be borderline notable, as it seems to be possible to extract at least some basic information about it. GregorB (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking's finds. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RECENT AND Mark viking's finds. ~KvnG 21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sure, if you are going to re-purpose the article (I could not find any mention of GE in earlier versions) then I would vote to move to Real-Time Multiprogramming Operating System since at least the one source that mentions it in the abstract spells the name out first, so the title rule of avoiding acronyms would apply. For precedent from that era see General Comprehensive Operating System often known as GECOS. And of course use past tense, mention the decade for context, and the brand of the computer on which it ran please. ... A little more digging, yields a snippet that implies the name is from 1967, and before that, it was just called "the monitor". It says it ran at 200 sites, which was actually a decent market share in those days. Indeed, the documents on bitsavers from this era like the GE PAC-4000 manual, call it "monitor" in 1966. It is always amusing to see it called a "main frame" since its memory could expand from 2K to 16 K words! There is an uncited mention of this line in General Electric#Computing. It was evidently used to control nuclear reactors, so wonder how long it was still being used? Maybe a merge or at least a link into that section is in order. Another longer-term idea would be to merge all the GE computer articles together into one that is sourced and presents a coherent narrative. But one step at a time. W Nowicki (talk) 20:59, 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. Sandstein 10:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of asteroids in astrology[edit]

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

Fringe within the fringe. Even "mainstream" astrologers ignore them: "Still though, they are often ignored within mainstream systems of astrology, especially in more traditional astrology systems like Vedic astrology or Hellenistic astrology. Their use has become significant to a few Western astrologers yet still only a minority of astrologers use the asteroids in chart interpretation." Very minor part of astrology, and does not meet Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability, no sources "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" giving decent coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete IRWolfie has analyzed things well. Fails our notability guideline for fringe topics, and the article relies only on unreliable fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planets_in_astrology#Other_solar_system_bodies, where asteroids are mentioned. Ansh6 6 6 03:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article can be merged with other articles of astrology or with the page suggested by Ansh. SmackoVector (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge unsourced/unreliably sourced content? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:58, 23 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!*} 03:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Planets_in_astrology#Other_solar_system_bodies and with redirect - very informative additional detail on astrology systems not already in article - please, improve sourcing now, first, if possible Tammytoons (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]

"please, improve sourcing now, " That's the issue, there is no independent sourcing, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Books have been written solely about this topic:
- George, Demetra; Bloch, Douglas (2003). Asteroid Goddesses: The Mythology, Psychology, and Astrology of the Re-Emerging Feminine. Red Wheel, Reiser. ISBN 0892545623.
- Donath, Emma Belle (1977). Asteroids in Synastry. American Federation of Astrologers. ISBN 0866900829.
- Donath, Emma Belle (1979). Asteroids in the Birth Chart. American Federation of Astrologers. ISBN 0866900810.
- Lang-Wescott, Martha (1991). Mechanics of the Future: Asteroids. Treehouse Mountain. ISBN 0961985216.
- As well, general astrology books have included information about asteroids. One such book is Computers and Astrology: A Universal User's Guide and Reference (ISBN 0962464813) which lists on page 71 the asteroids which are usually included in a computerized horoscope: Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta. It then lists "lesser" asteroids which may be of interest to astrology. James R. Lewis (scholar) spends several pages on asteroids in his Astrology Encyclopedia (ISBN 0810389002). He says that there are four main asteroids which are used by some astrologers: Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta. He writes: "Clearly, the next step in establishing the study of asteroids as a widely accepted branch of astrology will be the systematic exploration of the larger or the earlier asteroids, rather than the current piecemeal study of asteroids with idiosyncratic appeal." Regardless of whether I think this topic is worthy, the topic has obviously been made the subject of lists and books, so this list article should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are fringe sources. No sources independent of the promulgators and promoters per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability and WP:PROFRINGE ("The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents."). You haven't shown notability in the world at large at all, but are instead relying on astrological texts which are noted in reliable sources for their inherent irrationality and false claims, and this is undue promotion of a fringe aspect of a fringe theory (double fringe). The reason we have the fringe guidelines is to help deal with this unwarranted promotion by fringe advocates. And just to say in case there was any uncertainty, James R. Lewis is an academic of new age religions, but he is also a long time professional astrologer separate from that. His work on new age religions does not give him reliability with astrology. In the book he plainly calls astrology a science and says "astrology is labeled irrational because it has not been accepted into the mainstream of academic science", and "science creates more problems than it solves", blames the rejection of astrology on sun-sign astrology, attacks science and secularists several times etc etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 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) 21:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ġebel San Martin[edit]

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

No reason to have an article on this insignificant and perforce totally unreferenced housing estate in Żejtun. Suggest merge and redirect rather than outright delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Not a designated settlement that are generally kept. I would oppose a merge to Żejtun. Nothing is sourced and it would be disproportionate to that article (which though it needs expansion needs structured new content). The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:47, 17 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!*} 03:30, 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) 05:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Malley[edit]

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

Routine news with local Internet coverage. One local news report does not establish significance or importance for an encyclopedia entry. Fails WP:BLP and WP:1E. This article was originally CSD A7 and was was downgraded to PROD by another editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. There is a difference between significance and notability. Unfortunately. While there is more than local coverage, this does not rise to the level of significant coverage from reliable sources. While the impact of the subject's actions do rise to the level of significance, "the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has issued new safety procedures," they do not make him notable. While it would probably have been simpler to just let this proceed to a WP:PROD deletion, this works as well. As there are sources, they are best evaluated here. Dloh cierekim 03:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The matter is sub judice. Per WP:CRIME, "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Warden (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nodding along with previous points. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:27, 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 withdrawn - I missed the previous AFD and the citations for the book under it's alternate name. Stalwart111 02:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Treatise on White Magic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can see that the author might be notable but this would seem to fail WP:NBOOK having not been, "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". Stalwart111 02:36, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garmsir incident[edit]

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

fails WP:EVENT. also as per WP:LASTING, and WP:PERSISTENCE. all the sources in article from January 2010. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a notable subject reliably sourced. I've no doubt people will be coming to Wikipedia for years wanting to know our take on the Koran burning story. If we delete this then they are liable to go to POV sources that will either say it definitely did or did not happen. Then there's the issue that several people died in this, that makes it noteworthy. We need to be conscious of our institutional bias in such things, on the few occasions when several people have died in a shooting in Europe in this century it is unquestionably notable Ϣere SpielChequers 09:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

people dying does not mean automatic WP article. There is no POV if it doesn't appear in Wikipedia. There are 1000s of shootings and murders that do not get a Wikipedia article every year. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are tens of thousands of shootings and murders in the US alone every year and yes the vast majority are not notable. But this is clearly different and unusual - several dead rather than the typical one dead in a shooting, and killed by security forces rather than by criminals. Now if you could demonstrate that there were vast numbers of similar incidents per year and that this sort of thing was routine then there might be a case for deletion. Or rather the press might not have given it the coverage needed to pass the wp:GNG. Ϣere SpielChequers 04:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - far from being routine news. No benefit to our readers or the encyclopedia in deleting a meaningful article supported by multiple reliable sources.--cyclopia ^speak! 20:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all the sources are from January 2010, suggesting a news spike. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently high profile to meet the requirements of the notability guidelines. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of lasting significance. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms (Broadway album)[edit]

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

Album lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. A search found no good sources to show notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 9 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:16, 16 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) 02:07, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ophthalmology society of Ethiopia[edit]

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

Declined A7 speedy, borderline G11 as well. Small professional organization in Ethiopia, less than 100 members asserted. No third-party sources used in the article, and Google News archives do not return any either. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 17:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 16 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) 01:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and per above. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:25, 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 speedy keep. Per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep #1 - Non deletion request. As suggested, perhaps this discussion is better suited for WP:N/N or even the talk page of the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator followup: this discussion was closed as above, but then that was reverted by another user on the grounds that a non-admin closure was not warranted here. However, a new discussion has already been initiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokenge P. Malafa (2nd nomination) by the same editor who started this one — and since there is no need to maintain two simultaneous discussions I am acting as an administrator to close this one again. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mokenge P. Malafa[edit]

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

Can we check whether this meets WP:PROF please? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To nominator. Instead of asking other people to do the work would you like to do some yourself? For example would you like to tell us what you found on Google scholar etc.? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Looking at the article, I can see where the nom is coming from, but perhaps this should be moved to WP:N/N for a discussion there first? Stalwart111 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 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) 01:44, 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.

^ http://allfacebook.com/google-now-indexes-620-million-facebook-groups_b10520
^ http://www.sysomos.com/insidefacebook/
^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/08/22/antoinette-tuffs-weapon-of-the-spirit-how-compassion-stopped-a-gunman/
^ http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/23/antoinette_tuff_s_911_call_reveals_a_new_way_for_us_to_engage_the_gun_debate.html

[1] ttp://allfacebook.com/google-now-indexes-620-million-facebook-groups_b10520

[2] ttp://www.sysomos.com/insidefacebook/

[3] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/08/22/antoinette-tuffs-weapon-of-the-spirit-how-compassion-stopped-a-gunman/

[4] ttp://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/23/antoinette_tuff_s_911_call_reveals_a_new_way_for_us_to_engage_the_gun_debate.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]