Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 August 25 August >

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 merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Courcelles 04:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharess[edit]

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

The article contains only primary sources detailing minute characteristics of no encyclopedic value. It has little room for expansion, and the summary on List of Forgotten Realms deities is suitable enough for such a character. TTN (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The article does not currently cover this fictional element's use in fiction set in the same world as the games are, per the 'books' find source link, there are multiple additional sources there. Note, however, that searching for this fictional element is severely hampered by misspellings of 'shares' that seem quite common, given the frequency of that word. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would any of those provide real world notability for the topic? The only available resources are the lorebooks and any pertinent novels, all of which are primary and framed in an in-universe tone. There are a number of D&D characters that can demonstrate notability, but I cannot see this being one of them. TTN (talk) 22:46, 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 keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Pendell[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe author and poet. Very little impact at Google Books and Google Scholar; an article about his book series was deleted (prod) as non-notable in 2007. Almost no presence at Google News Archive; I found one review of one of his books by the Los Angeles Times. The only reference in the article is a video of a lecture he gave at Burning Man. MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 (multiple reviews). Added sources. Pharmako Trilogy has the most copies in print among his works. The series would probably pass notability now, but reasonable to discuss in his bio article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding those references. They do include one review by a Reliable Source, the Los Angeles Times. I don't see the rest as adding anything to his notability, per WP:42. The mere fact that he has books in print does not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whole Earth, Booklist, Rain Taxi, Village Voice (and arguably Psychedelic Press UK on this topic) are reliable sources. Multiple reviews demonstrate author notability per WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified by Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination The Village Voice now added to the LA Times makes two indisputably Reliable Sources, and both provide significant coverage. That meets WP:42. Thanks for the improvements to the article, Green Cardamom. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for all reasons stated before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 20:35, 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 redirect to Wendy Williams.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hunter[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Sources do not show that the subject has done anything significant and notable in his own right. Does not merit an independent article. Also, many of the sources are unreliable gossip websites. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - I suggest both Silver Buizel and BabbaQ reread WP:ARTIST and WP:CRIME. Neither supports inclusion of this article into Wikipedia. If I have made a mistake, feel free to cite the specific section that applies for each article that supports notability.reddogsix (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Does not meet WP:PROF. A second point raised was that the article is (1) borderline Wikipedia content (2) related to possible COI promotion. However, there was not enough discussion on this second point to determine whether the borderline page is hopelessly promotional due to sophisticated efforts to advance outside interests over the aims of Wikipedia. Some of the editors noted that the page is not hopelessly irreparable per the Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over essay. The Blow it up and start over essay seems more general and may not directly cover a hopelessly promotional situation. It may help to have a hopelessly promotional essay to address situations like this in the future. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mokenge P. Malafa[edit]

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

The previous AFD was incorrectly closed as "speedy keep" with no valid reason given for the "speedy keep" conclusion that was consistent with the original nomination. This has been explained to the closer. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to WP:N/N as suggested in original nomination. Tonywalton Talk 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has twice failed to advance any policy-based reason for deletion. That's the reason why the previous nomination was closed as a speedy keep. Why do you want this article deleted? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have twice provided the same valid reason for deletion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I find this argument disingenuous. The nominator clearly called out the article as potentially failing WP:PROF in the original nomination. This is a completely valid deletion rationale, and the fact that he worded it as a question rather than a clear statement should not be a reason for keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You may consider my remark disingenuous, David Eppstein and I get your point. But I believe that (except in the case of procedural noms on behalf of IP editors or newbies), a nomination should clearly state that the nominator has concluded the article should be deleted, and why. A nomination shouldn't implicitly ask other editors to do the groundwork described in WP:BEFORE, and as DGG has so graciously done here. That's my view of the matter, and I'm not trying to be difficult. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no reasons for deletion given by nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment see my comment above reply to
  • Speedy keep - again - This user is on a mission to try and call my competence into question. As you can see Barney - there's a specific reason why it was properly closed before. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as has been explained to you at some length, despite your refusal to listen, the reason why this has been nominated again is that it was closed imporoperly before - the reason for deletion is the same as the original policy-based reason for deletion. I do not see any reason why I have to repeat myself. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, Dusti's action was acceptable — you don't have to agree with their decision, but they were entirely within their right to make it. Your first nomination consisted of a question as to whether the article met WP:PROF or not — you did not advance a reasoned, comprehensive argument that it objectively failed to meet our inclusion rules, but merely asked for other people to investigate whether it did or not. As noted, there are things you can do — take it to WP:N/N, for example — if you have questions about an article's notability and want further investigation, but AFD is not the correct process to use until you can provide clear, unambiguous evidence that the article definitely fails to meet one or more of our inclusion rules and should definitely be deleted on those grounds. An AFD discussion without a deletion rationale can be closed at any time by anyone, and your nomination did not include a deletion rationale — and furthermore, the discussion had in fact been open for a full week already without anyone posting either a keep or deletion rationale. I am an administrator, and I might very well have closed it too if I'd seen it before all of this happened. You certainly do have the right to reopen a new discussion as you've done here — but I do have to warn you that if you don't stop criticizing Dusti and start discussing the article, you are running the risk of a temporary editblock for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As with Cullen328's comment earlier, this "keep" comment fails to address the deletion rationale (i.e., whether the subject passes WP:PROF), nor does it provide any other policy-based reason for keeping other than the failure to understand the clearly-worded and policy-based rationale for the previous discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, possibly speedy delete as G11 The reason given for deletion was specified as it being questionable whether the individual meets WP:PROF, a perfectly good reason for listing an article here. Asking the nominator to specify it in more exact words insteadtead of saying " Can we check whether this meets WP:PROF please" is mere quibbling--the meaning of the deletion reason is perfectly clear. I consider it reasonable for people to bring a questionable article here and ask for opinions; I do this routinely when it looks dubious but is out of my subject. There is two additional very good reasons for deletion, even deletion via speedy: The biographical part of the article is in large part a copy or very close paraphrase of his bio at Moffit Cancer Center here, and it is an entirely promotional article that would need extensive rewriting beyond normal editing. Personally, I do not think the person is notable enough to be worth doing it. And there is another reason to avoid doing it: the author of this article appears to be an entirely promotional editor writing articles about physicians at the Moffit Cancer Center--and I see no reason to myself do properly the work they are (presumably) being paid for and doing improperly. There is a concentrated campaign at WP for articles on robotic surgery and its practitioners, and this is just one part of it. (I suspect it is an attempt to use us as part of a sales competition between the major manufactures of the multi-million dollar machines used in the field)
First, with respect to notability. The relevant criterion in WP:PROF is the person being a recognized authority is their subject. For scientific fields, this is normally judged on the basis of citations of the individual's papers. The citations for his most cited papers in Google Scholar are 123, 105, 91, in good journals. The h value is 21. This is not spectacular in the field, but it's good. He is not one of the leading workers in the field: a GS search on the subject shows many papers on vitamin E and cancer with citation ranging from 200 to 3000. He has been on the editorial board of some important journals is his subject, though that alone is not notability, as these are large editorial boards of several dozen people. He has not been on the editorial board of a major journal. (corrected, Aug.26) He is an officer in no national professional association, he is an elected fellow of no professional society, his academic positions have been only as Associate Professor
Second, about the promotionalism. The article freely uses adjectives of praise: "many papers"; ":most notable". the "Awards" section consists of directory listings, extremely minor awards, and student awards, and within-university awards. There's nothing here which should even be mentioned in a bio article. The professional work section consists of an overextend discussion mixing in his totally unimportant work with his more important work showing no signs of discriminating between the two. The section on surgical work and his work on preventative guidelines talks about activities where he was a "major player" , or had "involvement" or was "one of the first..." . Etc. etc.
I am not particularly happy at Barney letting me do all this checking, instead of trying himself, but he did find an article that needs to be removed. I shall be nominating other related articles for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet the standards of WP:PROF specifically:
    • 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources In this case Malafa appears to have strong Google scholar rankings, author or co-author of a few hundred papers, cited all over the place. It is evident that he has made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline
That being said, I do think that the page could use some work. However there's a long stretch of road between "needs work" and "delete." Simonm223 (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In his specialty, the use of Vitamin E for cancer prevention/amelioration: Google scholar found citation counts of 1552, 960, 674, 651, 541, etc. I conclude from this that this is a high-citation area and that his own citation counts, 123, 105, etc (while nothing to sneeze at) are not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1. What else is there? Chair of a department is clearly not a high enough level administrative position for WP:PROF, and the awards listed in the article are certainly too low-level to count for much. And I also agree with the promotional language and conflict-of-interest concerns raised by DGG. If he were more clearly notable, I'd suggest stubbing it down to something neutral and better-sourced, but in this case because of the borderline notability and COI issues I think WP:TNT is a better choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While there are many articles and institutions investigating the role of Vitamin E in cancer prevention, each group investigates specific aspects of this problem: rectal cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, etc. A quick look at the articles which cite the subject's research will show that only he has conducted research on whether α-TOS can prevent melanoma, for example. Also, the fact that the subject's research is routinely cited, even when the article is dealing with a different application of Vitamin E than the subject deals with, demonstrates, in accordance with WP:PROF, the subjects' broad attribution as a pioneer in this area of research:
      • "the [subject] has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." 72.184.149.224 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you restrict the author's specialization to Vitamin E for melanoma, this will eliminate three of his five top-cited papers. And even in that highly-specialized subtopic, he does not have the most highly-cited paper (that one is by Prasad and Edwards-Prasad). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have copyedited a bit, correcting typos and errors. I have removed puffery and promotionalism, including two mentions of the brand name of the robotic surgery gear that he now uses. I have trimmed away some unreferenced material. I am not claiming that the article is without flaws, but I've tried to attack its most glaring defects. Two editors I respect, DGG and David Eppstein have recommending deleting while conceding that notability may be possible. DGG described the citation count as "good" but "not spectacular". David Eppstein called the citations "nothing to sneeze at" and conceded "borderline notability". Both expressed concern about promotionalism and COI editing, which can be addressed through the normal editing process, and which I have tried to do in recent hours. I concede that I am weak in assessing the notability of academics, since I am a guy with a bachelor's degree not now involved in academia. But I don't think that the TNT essay applies here, since I honestly don't see the article as "hopelessly irreparable". I encourage everyone participating in this debate to make a thoughtful, constructive edit or three to this article, and add it to your watch lists. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago I would have agreed with you. What I think we need to do here is add the most important academic people, with the priority for the notable ones, not the ones who havePR agents. If this were an isolated article, I would feel differently, but why should either you or I work at helping someone make all the articles for the borderline people at a particular medical institute? Neither notability nor promotionalism is a black/white issue. In the past I'd keep anything where Notability was borderline unless it was total advertising. Now I would remove anything borderline unless there is no taint of promotionalism, and I would personally not bother rewriting a promotional article unless the subject were actually famous. If I can find a way or proposing this as a formal deletion criterion I will. The danger to WP is not in including marginal articles, but rather is including promotionalism. With different standards of notability, we'd be a more or less complete encyclopedia; with respect to advertising, we wouldn't be an encyclopedia at all. But I will say, that if it is kept, I will fix it further, rather than have it totally misrepresent his importance. Incidentally, I mentioned that he is only an associate professor; a less sophisticated editor would have said this--this avoids saying he has any academic rank at a med school at all, because it would have to say what it was. This is sophisticated WP-aware promotional writing, and therefore all the more dangerous. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is "sophisticated" PR writing, then that industry is not capable of fooling people like you. I can see trying to slip in the brand name of the robotic surgery system, but twice? And scrambling up where he was raised? The reason I chose to try to improve the article is that I am a volunteer and it caught my interest. I can work on any article I want to, and I get some strange pleasure occasionally from saving articles I discover at AfD. I would rather work on a biography of a research physician than an article on an internet meme or anime character. As for him being "only" an associate professor, I don't think that is incompatible with notability at all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sophisticated = relatively sophisticated. For the usual really crude stuff, watch CSD. As for associate professors, although it's not a bar, very few of them have ever been found notable here, even from the most important research universities. Personally, I'd put the bar for WP:PROF lower, at a level which would generally include associate professors at major research universities on the same principle as we don't require musicians to have multiple hit records, or professional athletes to play at that level for more than one single game. I get greatest pleasure help in helping individuals, next greatest in helping borderline articles. I now get pleasure only in helping the ones not the products of PR. Tell me, if you wanted to add researchers who made a contribution to the relationship between vitamin E and cancer, wouldn't you want to write articles on the ones with the most notable work? And in fact the most notable work is that vitamin E supplementation has a detrimental effect on cancer, & this referred to in the relevant WP articles, although none of the lead researchers there have WP articles. . (not that his work shows otherwise--if you read careful--it's entirely pre-clinical studies on cell lines and mice.) The impression the article gives, however, is very different, and could best be helped by removing the word cancer from the article so it doesn't show up prominently in G searches for the subject, which it currently does. Unfortunately, this is impossible since whatever minor importance he has a surgeon is in treating cancer. So the net effect of keeping this article is to promote an untested theory which is against the weight of all medical evidence, If we do keep this article i will reduce section 4.1 to one sentence in the research paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I made an error above: he is not on the editorial board of any major journal, just the minor journal published by his own research center: he "has provided ad hoc reviews" for major journals--something so utterly routine for any scientist with a PhD even with no faculty position whatsoever, that it doesn't even contribute to significant content, let alone to notability, and is always removed from articles along with the other fluff. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is a medical researcher and MD. I'm not sure why this was cross-posted to the Academic & Educators list. I'm not sure within the field of medical research whether he is considered notable but I think different standards apply than are used to assess academic notability. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass the admittedly high criteria for WP:ACADEMIC, and of course not even close to WP:GNG. He appears to be a successful but run-of-the-mill surgical oncologist. His citations at Google Scholar are OK but nothing to indicate he is a thought leader in his field has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline; his positions held are not remarkable; and the awards listed are trivial. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Prof does not require a person to be a "thought leader". The "average professor" test is often invoked. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I am the creator of this page. First, I'd like to thank the editors who have taken the time to contact me with constructive criticism and clarification on the policies and expectations for Wikipedia writing. I want to improve and I appreciate your patience and welcoming demeanor. I'm sorry that many see my work as a harmful addition to the project-this is my first page. I understand that the creator of AFDs aren't always the best spokespersons for the articles, however, I would like to at least clarify a major misconception that seems to be impacting the discussion.
    • A major question everyone is considering is whether or not the subject has a high enough citation score to merit notability, according to the WP:PROF criteria #1. The main evidence that has been cited by at least two major contributors is that they searched for "Vitamin E and cancer research" and found thousands of references. Please note that there are two different kinds of Vitamin E: tocopherols and tocotrienols. In conventional language, "Vitamin E" is a reference to tocopherols--that is the substance used in the Western vitamin supplements labeled "Vitamin E" and found in most foods. It's been a known substance since the 1930s and has been extensively researched. Tocotrienols, on the other hand, are lesser known family of Vitamin E agents which we know very little about. The research on these four compounds (alpha- (α-), beta- (β-), gamma- (γ-), and delta- (δ-)) and their medical potential is relatively new. All this can be confirmed on Wikipedia's own article for Vitamin E which I have never edited.
    • If you do a Google Scholar search for "Vitamin E and cancer" as DGG and David Eppstein have done, you will indeed find many thousands of articles. That is because the search terms do not distinguish between the two families of Vitamin E. On the other hand, if you do a search for "tocopherols and cancer" in PubMed, you get 962 results, the oldest being from 1951; then if you do a search for "Tocotrienols and Cancer" you get only 256 results, the oldest being from 1989. Doing a similar search in Google Scholar (for "T... and cancer prevention") yeilds 36,000+ (for tocopherols) compared to 9,000+ (for tocotrienols). You'll see that most of the tocotrienol articles are cited less than 100 times, with a handful having been cited over 300-1000 times, with the highly cited articles being Review articles, not Research articles. This should be taken into account when considering the subject's impact on this area of research. Jcmeberhard (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Looks like it doesnt quite fit WP:NPROF but I've seen less-notable professors with articles avoid deletion citing that same policy.
  • Stubify if kept
I would also like to note that the articles created by this editor, Jcmeberhard, all are physicians at Moffitt, and all spring out nearly fully formed, without either collaboration or AfC or extensive sandbox editing, as far as I can tell. This editor also has no other editing to speak of. It smells very much like someone needs to take a look at the conflict of interest policy and our simple essay on editing as someone with a CoI, ASAP. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the point raised by CommandLine above is very concerning. Has someone put this on the noticeboard? Lesion (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the other large article created by this editor, and cut out some of the extraneous stuff, but i havent posted at WP:COI/N yet. I'll leave that to you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
posted at COI/N. this edit was just too much. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing mentioned above: the "average professor" test. Who is an average professor depends on the universe one choose to sample. If we take the approximately 3 million people in the world with some level of professorship title, the average professor is a junior associate professor at a second rate college. To say that everyone over that level is notable is way below our current standard. If we mean full professors at high intensity research institutions, then there's about 100,000 people, all of whom are probably notable, and representing the top 3% of all "professors". If we go by research expectations, the average h value for published authors is between 1 and 2. This is true in other fields also: who's an average football player? But if we limit ourself to full time professionals on top level teams, they're all notable. If the population of the world is 7 billion, then 3.5 billion people are above average. If we confine notability adults, as with rare exceptions we usually do here, that's 2 billion. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In another direction, the presumed publicist for Mofitt is out to claim that all of its physicians ate notable, for all of them cure cancer. And presumably they all do, on a case to case basis. To what extent this individual is a better cancer surgeon than others, or more notable than others, is unproven--it could only be proven by professional awards, and he has none. If the claim is rather that all of the researchers there are doing research that will cure cancer, then it has to be based on the fact that they are all doing research as he is on subjects that bear some relation to things that could be argued might prove to cure or prevent cancer. The specific argument from that ed. above, and the argument in the article he writes, is that this particular individual is working on specific compounds that happen to be unlike the general class of such compounds--a class of compounds well-known to promote cancer. And that they have some ability in experiments still apparently unconfirmed elsewhere to interfere with biological processes in cell culture that have some relationship to human cancer or in mice (when used in conjunction with unrelated compounds known to inhibit cancer in mice) . That's the sort of argument one uses to raise money--all fundraisers and other publicists in the field say some variant of it. It may prove notable, and we all hope it will be. In WP terms, it means what so much of promotionalism here does mean, not yet notable. This is why I and others here have come to take a very strong exception to the sort of "notability" found in promotional articles. The fact that an article is considerably promotional now in practice merits the presumption that what is discussed is probably not notable either. That's not always true, but it usually is. If it were already notable, usually one wouldn't have to come here to promote it. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. GS h-index of 18 is a bit below the bar for WP:Prof#C1 in a highly cited field. Promotional nature of article strengthens my view. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: But, to quote WP:Prof#C1, although it's true that, according the second bullet, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has ... significant citation rates" (as might be measured by an h-index), according to the third bullet, "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." The only argument that has been raised against this second claim/criteria is that, in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, the individual methods of treating cancer are insignificant, according to DGG. However, within "the academic discipline" (to cite the wording of the policy) of Oncology, the individual ways we can effectively treat cancer are highly significant. And, to Wikipedia users in the medical community looking up information about specific treatments and research projects, this is useful information. The subject's research has focused on solving a major problem (what do tocotrienols do?) and in doing so, has made a discovery (they prevent pancreatic cancer growth, and how). The majority of literature on this topic will cite the subject's work (as other contributors have noted). Jcmeberhard (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Everything you say is called into question by your conflict of interest. Lesion (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the individual means to treat cancer are significant & notable. But at this point he has not yet found one. Solving a major problem is notable: he has not yet done so,. Making a significant discovery is notable; he is so far only trying to make one. As I said earlier, should his work lead to a treatment in practical use, or possibly even something that reaches stage III trials, notability will be present.
It is quite unusual for a promotional editor to try to keep an article despite reasonable opposition. Sensible people, when they see something is not likely to be notable here, do not keep trying to make the same unlikely case. If you are indeed representing him or the school, you are conducting this in almost the least effective possible way to enhance their reputations on WP. The way to do the least harm to your subject is to accept things now, so there won't be a bad experience on record when he does eventually do something notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 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. Courcelles 04:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paglu 3 (2014 film)[edit]

Paglu 3 (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created too soon with no information of its production, shooting, release. PROD removed. Tito☸Dutta 22:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BALL Tonywalton Talk 00:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firre[edit]

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

This was AFDed in 2006 with several "weak keep" votes. This is still unreferenced and an orphan. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not every programme in the US DoD is WP:NOTABLE. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is alarmingly lacking in references,. As such it's in the category of "madey-up stuff". Tonywalton Talk 00:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Family of Integrated Rapid Response Equipment. This book and several others describe the program. Here's an abstract of a technical journal article about FIRRE. It should not be "alarming" that references are lacking from an article when a Google search shows plenty of references. Simply add the sources and the basis for alarm evaporates. This is not made up. Not every US military program is notable, but many are, as are many of the military programs of other countries as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not reopen AfDs where only the nom wanted the article deleted. We don't delete articles because they're in bad shape or because no one is actively working on them. ~KvnG 21:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources by Cullen. Passes WP:GNG, AfD is not cleanup. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified by Cullen328. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:05, 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. Courcelles 04:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radko Mutafchiyski[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about footballer who plays in 2nd level of Bulgarian football. Appears to fail GNG and NSPORTS. He has since also played in the Macedonian First League, but since that league is not fully pro, the basic point remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No fully pro league/national team appearance.Nor does it meets WP:GNG.Lsmll 04:53, 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Towne[edit]

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

'Charles Towne' links here, but the name entries are already under 'Towne'. Something would have to be done for the 'Charles Towne becoming Charleston, South Carolina'. Smarkflea (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Smarkflea (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep - I don't see the need for deletion here. Towne may already list the two guys named Charles Towne, but that doesn't seem to be problematic redundancy. Otherwise, we have two entries with articles here for people, and one for a town's historical name. It is also navigationally useful for the two dab pages linked to. If there were a third person with an article here, I would !vote with a definite keep. Chris857 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I added another two items to the see also. Chris857 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough entries now, plus a near match. The redundancy is acceptable; alternatively the three entries in Towne could be replaced by a link to this page. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep perfectly good dab. Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have two people named Charles Town as well as Charleston, this is a perfectly serviceable dab page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Darlington 1883 season[edit]

2012–13 Darlington 1883 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous consensus here and here, amongst many others. If it's not a team in a fully-pro league (i.e. outside of the Football League in England) then it does not merit a season article. GiantSnowman 10:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I welcome the debate on this subject, I don't want to argue what is notable and what isn't, but in the case of Darlington 1883, Chester F.C. and even F.C. Halifax Town are notable teams, while there may have name changes in all those examples, in the eyes of everybody, including the FA and National League System, they are normally deemed the spiritual successor to the club before them, and most of the time lay claim to the history of those before them, so this evolved from something notable if things like this is deemed not notable, then do we go ahead and nominate League season articles that is under the Conference National, I am relatively new to wikipedia myself, so I am still learning about lots of things here, thats my tuppence on the subject
  • Delete -- The club may be sufficiently notable to have an article, but only teams in the top 4 (fully professional) leagues/divisions should be haivng anything more detailed like a seasonal article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, club does not play at a level anywhere near high enough to satisfy WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the consensus has always been that the cut-off point for season articles are Conference National, and the AfD's GiantSnowman links to above is for clubs that play below the fifth tier of the English league system. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this club was playing below the fifth tier during this season, so my arguments isn't valid. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:05, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Darlington 1883 season[edit]

2013–14 Darlington 1883 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous consensus here and here, amongst many others. If it's not a team in a fully-pro league (i.e. outside of the Football League in England) then it does not merit a season article. GiantSnowman 21:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I welcome the debate on this subject, I don't want to argue what is notable and what isn't, but in the case of Darlington 1883, Chester F.C. and even F.C. Halifax Town are notable teams, while there may have name changes in all those examples, in the eyes of everybody, including the FA and National League System, they are normally deemed the spiritual successor to the club before them, and most of the time lay claim to the history of those before them, so this evolved from something notable if things like this is deemed not notable, then do we go ahead and nominate League season articles that is under the Conference National, I am relatively new to wikipedia myself, so I am still learning about lots of things here, thats my tuppence worth on the subjectdfcfozz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The club may be sufficiently notable to have an article, but only teams in the top 4 (fully professional) leagues/divisions should be haivng anything more detailed like a seasonal article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I take the point, but surely keeping it and similar articles can only be a good thing, keep them and they can in time become a handy place to source from in future for staticians and fans alike dfcfozz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to add further comments, but do not !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, club does not play at a level anywhere near high enough to satisfy WP:NSEASONS. Argument to keep as outlined above contravenes WP:NOT#STATS. Fenix down (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the consensus has always been that the cut-off point for season articles are Conference National, and the AfD's GiantSnowman links to above is for clubs that play below the fifth tier of the English league system. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this club was playing below the fifth tier during this season, so my arguments isn't valid.Mentoz86 (talk) 23:08, 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 after looking at Trevj sources. Out of all the sources that he listed, the closest to making the church meets GNG was the first one (the rest are press releases and trivial mentions). Make this a WP:SOFTDELETE however as there might be some sources that aren't online or though paywalls. Secret account 02:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany World Prayer Center[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Megachurches are generally notable, and a gnews search reveals significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Megachurches are not automatically notable. A Google News search reveals routine local coverage from The Advocate and trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I created the article in response to a dead link on the Ted Haggard article; Haggard's first ministry work was at this church and there was significant coverage of Bethany when his homosexuality scandal broke. I'll also say that this church is intertwined with Evangelical politics significantly and it is possible to find references to this online. I can believe this is not enough to warrant true notability, but we may want to correct articles referencing this one to point to the Bethany web-site if the article is deleted. If the article is retained, mention of Haggard should definitely be added! fondfire (talk) 14:36, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A church of this size should be notable. However this is not a good article and needs to be taggged for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no proof of notability. SL93 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Having primarily local coverage is not necessarily a deal breaker. Afterall, you'd expect most of the news about Louisiana State University to be from news sources around Louisiana. However, it seemed that the ONLY source of information on this church was from one paper: The Advocate. Further, the nature of these mentions seemed to be very much of the run-of-the-mill variety. The Church is having a bake sale. The Church is having a clothing drive. The Church is having a fund-raising car wash. That kind of thing. Nothing of real substance. Even the Ted Haggard connection is problematic. He was in and out of that church a couple decades before he was notable for anything. Besides, notability is not inherited. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:58, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Shinmawa. Routine coverage in local sources is great for expanding an article, but is not enough to achieve notability per WP:ORG. A religious congregation is not inherently notable just because it is called a megachurch, or because it owns a building with a large seating capacity, or because it claims to have thousands of members (there is little or no auditing of membership and attendance claims for some churches). It does not automatically become notable because Haggard worked there, though if Haggard had received widespread coverage in reliable and independent sources for something he did there it would lend notability to the church. It would not be surprising if the church had gotten some coverage in nonlocal sources for nonroutine events, but it is not presented at the article and hasn't been presented here either. It is incumbent on anyone asserting notability to point out the adequate references, though they can leave it to others to add them to the article. Edison (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:GNG.[1][2][3][4](from [5]) The coverage I found is far from extensive but seems to be more than just local. Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, because this isn't a topic area I'm familiar with. -- Trevj (talk) 14:05, 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 delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Güneş[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable, no indication in the article that he might meet WP:Academic Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've just correctly sourced the article, and it is notable enough for inclusion per many notability guidelines, such as writer, physician, inventor, presenter, and academic. Güneş is a world leader in complementary cancer therapy. Güneş has appeared in a notable feature film, and wrote notable books on the subject of cancer therapy. John Cengiz talk 06:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't see the multiple independent sources needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The article appears to be entirely self-sourced, a big problem. Xan has already pointed out that the case for WP:PROF is essentially nonexistent; if (as JohnCengiz77 suggests) he is more notable for other activities than academic research, then it needs to be shown via WP:GNG. A google news archive search failed to find anything about the subject; it did find a lot of stories in Turkish about a Turkish teacher and writer with the same name, but since the subject in question is a German cancer researcher, I think they are not the same person. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems very self-promotional, more of an autobiography than an article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 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. Contact me if you need text for merging. No prejudice against redirecting.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation research[edit]

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

I believe that this topic is fraught as it seems to be couched in terms of parapsychology with a bias against the actual comparative religion studies of reincarnation which are the actual academic pursuit. This cul du sac of investigation ongoing by Jim B. Tucker can be elucidated well at his biography page or on the page of reincarnation directly. To have a separate article devoted to the credulous belief that reincarnation as a extant phenomenon is scientifically studied as this seems to violate WP:FRINGE#Independent sources guidelines that say that a topic must be notable via independent sources. The only people interested in "reincarnation research" as the article originally demarcates it are paranormal enthusiasts. Even so, most of the usable content is already found at other pages including reincarnation, Ian Stevenson, and Jim B. Tucker. jps (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Ian Stevenson. I am not sure if there is anything worth moving there left, as much of the material is repeated in both articles. Anyway, the main problem of the article is the lack of the well-defined object - unless it is "anything that Ian Stevenson has done, that is related to reincarnation". The current version ([8]) masks that problem a little "better" than the version before the last proposal ([9]), but it is still there. For example, the definition has no source. The editors who were trying to "save" this article have been told that it is necessary (Talk:Reincarnation research/Archive 4#Recent article expansion), but, apparently, have failed to find any suitable source (two sources near the definition are - perhaps misleadingly - not about the definition itself). Thus the article lists the "methods" - "Children's memories", "Corresponding birthmarks", "Psychological and cultural characteristics", "Independent replication", "Independent replication", "Reviews" and "Research protocols" (yes, some of them are not even "methods") - with no actual indication that they belong to the same field... Finally, the fact that this article is really about the work of one man can even be seen from this pair of statements from the section "Criticism": "Research on reincarnation has received a mixed response. His [sic] methodology was criticized for providing no conclusive evidence for the existence of past lives.". "He", of course, is Ian Stevenson (and that is what the source was talking about). As it can be seen from all the evidence, this material belongs in the article about him (with the obvious exception of material that does not belong in Wikipedia at all). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like it contains magical mumbojumbo , such as looking for birthmarks on a child which match physical injuries of their antecedents. But per the article it has been a topic of research for several researchers with respectable academic posts. It should not be merged to the one researcher, since other have worked on it. It would be akin to merging operant conditioning to B.F Skinner. See also Bridey Murphy, from the early 1950's. Study of reincarnation, however flawed scientifically, predates the research of the proposed merge target. Edison (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, how do you define "reincarnation research"..? For without any sourced (or even unsourced, but informative) definition we cannot conclude that anything belongs to that "field". That would be "original research".
    Oh, and even if it could be demonstrated that someone else worked in the "field", by itself it still wouldn't mean that the merge is inappropriate. Something like "Work of X has been repeated by Y." would be suitable for article about "X". And the article as it currently exists does not really write much else about work of anyone who is not Ian Stevenson. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK "the nominator ...fails to advance an argument for deletion" as they seem to be arguing that we should move this material to other pages such as Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. The topic is, in any case, covered by mainstream media such as the BBC. Warden (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warden, you know that is an invalid invocation of speedy keep. [10] is a source about Stevenson and what he did. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SK invocation seems just fine but you can consider it a Keep too, if you like. As for the BBC source, that discusses the work of other people besides Stevenson such as "Dr Antonia Mills has been studying reincarnation among the Native American Gitxsan and Witsuwit'en communities". The suggestion that this topic is associated only with one particular person and is not covered by mainstream sources is thus blatantly false. Warden (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has just five sentences about Mills. And please, there is no need for "strawman". No one says that Ian Stevenson is the only one who has done anything related (and the author of the proposal has offered the article Reincarnation as the merge target too). The problems are that: 1) it is not certain what would belong to this "field" (do you have a source with some definition?) and 2) the article as it exists at the moment is mostly about Ian Stevenson. Even BBC source you cited specifically as example of a source mentioning someone else is mostly about him. Thus article about him seems to be the most suitable target for redirection. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more about Mill's work, along with that of numerous other researchers and scholars: Review of Amerindian Rebirth. This field is obviously the study of reincarnation, just as political science is the study of politics. What's the problem? Warden (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Political science" does have a definition with a source ([11] - "Oxford Dictionary of Politics: political science"). This article does not. Thus your proposed definition is "original research". And I do not think it is even correct to say that "reincarnation research" is research, concerning reincarnation (as you seem to suggest). There is actual research concerning reincarnation. It is done by philosophers, theologians, anthropologists, scholars of comparative religion... It has nothing to do with the pseudoscience that is supposed to be the subject of this article. And, of course, that research should be described in the article Reincarnation, where the subject of this article probably shouldn't even get a sentence (per WP:UNDUE). Thus your proposed definition, while seemingly obvious, just won't do. And I cannot propose anything better than "whatever it is that has been done by Ian Stevenson and concerned reincarnation" myself... That is the problem. So, if you feel that there is something to write an article about, start looking for definition. Without definition, nothing else counts. You offer some review and I end up asking: is it the same kind of pseudoscience or a different one? I don't know - there is no definition to check. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had a merge proposal some time ago: Talk:Reincarnation_research#Merge_proposal to merge this article. This article is mostly a summary of content which I already merged into the Ian Stevenson article. This article merely re-says what is in other articles and only serves as a POV fork. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork per IRWolfie - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IRW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per IRWolfie above. While I acknowledge that, at least potentially, there might be a sufficient independent reliable sources for such an article as this, I haven't seen them yet, and the material in this article is, apparently, also already included in other articles, which do not apparently have the same problems of POV, OR, and scope that the current article does. But, like I said, if there are independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability found later which offer a clear definition of scope which isn't really apparent yet, at that time it might not be unreasonable to re-create the article based on that evidence. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to selective merges to Ian Stevenson and just Reincarnation. Research into XYZ is very rarely sufficiently notable to have a page separate to XYZ, and this one definitely doesn't seem to meet that threshold.--KorruskiTalk 13:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is padded out to length by repeating material already contained at Ian Stevenson and Jim B. Tucker. Activities of the remaining two, Mills and Haraldsson, can easily be summarized at the main article section Reincarnation#Reincarnation_research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaj Kielland[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the Basic criteria for notabilityThe baron title and maybe other things may be a WP:Hoax. The Norwegian Kielland family is not and has never been a noble family. An article in The Hindu portrays a martial art expert Nikolaj Kielland who lives in India. Iselilja (talk) 19:01, 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 no consensus. between keeping or merging Secret account 02:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyt Tikkun Synagogue[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion in 2008, and kept, but there are not adequate sources about the Synagogue to support an article. Most of the coverage involves Cindy Sheehan speaking there, and is not about the synagogue itself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't see what the problem is. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. -- Y not? 23:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the coverage specifically about the synagogue that meet the notability guideline? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aren't you tired of pestering everyone who disagrees with you? -- Y not? 21:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Michael Lerner. until this community has a building, or a large organizational structure, AND more references about it separate from it being Mr. Lerner's project, I dont think it needs an article. all this info can easily fit into his bio. (and just in case anyone is concerned about bias, i am an admirer of Lerner, and have attended a service there-one of the very progressive jewish groups that you dont have to be jewish to appreciate or attend. its not a big group, at least as of that night.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the reliable and verifiable coverage about the congregation. As this is about a synagogue, and not a building, the lack of a permanent location seems irrelevant. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the mere fact that this stub has survived so long and managed to survive both a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun (5 February 2008) that was then endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14 with the plentiful reasons cited both times then, is reason enough to keep this stub. Yes, it is only a stub but that means it deserves a {{expand}} or {{improve}} templates. But the problem is that there are so few willing and capable Judaic editors that it therefore sometimes takes sooo long to improve such articles (see WP:DONOTDEMOLISH). Still, no reason to do hatchet jobs on them, because they are encyclopedic due to the WP:RS and WP:N that is in them. IZAK (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where are the sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Thargor: I appreciate what is eluding you, in this case, as often happens in synagogue-rabbi affairs, an actual synagogue happens to be "founded" by a famous person or rabbi and then the two phenomena (synagogue and rabbi) branch out yet remain connected. Thus, you will see that the majority of WP:RS in this article, and there are quite a few (I have just added a bunch) are also connected with the rabbi, and vice versa. If anything, a case may be made for a "merge and redirect" to Michael Lerner but that is not what you are proposing, and even so, because of the well-known popularity of this unconventional synagogue in the media since its founding in 1996, it's an argument for keeping this article. IZAK (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the consensus is a merge, that would be sensible. If the consensus is to keep, very well, but I'd like to think there'd be some sources for it is all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Michael Lerner. He is clearly notable; his synagogue-without-walls is not. I notice that of the four now five now six "keep" !votes above and below, not one of them supplies an actual source; merely saying "it's notable" or "there are sources" or "well known popularity in the media" does not prove notability. Of the sources in the article, three appear to be mainstream Reliable Sources, but two of them (SF Chronicle and HuffPost) are actually written by Lerner himself, so not independent; I can't evaluate the NYT link because it appears to be dead the NYT item devotes half a sentence to the synagogue-without-walls. The other references in the article are self-referential. Remember that "merge/redirect" is not a death sentence; the article can always be recreated, with its history intact, if actual coverage develops later. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is at least one source for it after Lerner left, so it justifies having its own article. DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per MelanieN. Clear content fork. This article has no meat and none has been forthcoming since 2008. Chesdovi (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there seems to be a clear consensus that the content should be kept in some form so the question is where best to locate it. There is enough in the article for its own page and this seems the best solution, particularly since the synagogue is no longer dependent on Lerner. Having said that, compliance with WP:ORG is frankly marginal. However, though compliance with that guideline means we keep a page, failure to meet it doesn't mean the page should be deleted. As the preamble says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". The objective of notability standards is to keep the obviously unimportant off the project. This organisation has enough significance for an article so, if required, it can be one of the "occasional exceptions". The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is no such consensus. Although there is a numerical majority in favor of "keep", not one of the "keep" !voters provided any actual evidence to support their assertions of notability. Per WP:NOTAVOTE the strength of arguments has to be taken into account in determining consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that "the content should be kept in some form". That includes a merge which you yourself proposed. Only the nominator has proposed deletion - everyone else has suggested keep or merge. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:50, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarauti[edit]

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

Since my PROD tag has been removed without the autho addressing my concerns: Basically the article is made for personal reasons, even noting his/her family as notable people in that area, conflict of interest. also making personal statement such as cute temple, etc. would tag it for speedy delete but I don't know which category. SefBau :  msg  14:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - The article's been fixed now, I'm just not sure now if the information written there is accurate and enough. If it is enough then I withdraw my nomination. SefBau :  msg  17:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I tried to fix this article the repeated spam is sufficient to convince me Wikipedia will be better not having this article. SL7968 11:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any article for a reasonably sized settlement is inherently notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Solomon, I've also tried to clean this up, but the creator just keeps putting back the same spammy junk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it appears to be a real place. If being a magnet for spam and POV were a reason for deletion, are we going to get rid of Barack Obama or George W. Bush next? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a village with a population of over 3,000 people. Wikipedia's core policies state that it incorporates features of a gazetteer including this type of information. Though the article is unreferenced at this time, it has included what appears to be census data since the beginning. The fact that the new editor who created the article is not familiar with our policies is not a reason to delete the article. It is a reason to improve it, and that process has begun. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I added a ref but the article creator removed it. (see page history). SL7968 18:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the reference back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Populated places like this are easily notable, even if the author of the page didn't know what he was doing. TCN7JM 19:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only is it a populated place which demonstrates inherent notability, but it's a district headquarters, similar to a county seat in the US or a county town in the UK.--Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 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, default to keep. Commenters differ on whether Swiggs has the minimum amount of coverage to meet WP:N, particularly with the LA Times blog interview. No consensus has emerged. Jujutacular (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deon Swiggs[edit]

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

This article was deleted at AFD1 and the consensus in the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 2 was tending to endorsed until new sources were adduced. These sources need discussion and AFD is the correct venue so here we are at AFD2.

The sources provided are:-

As the closer of the DRV this is a procedural listing and I am personally neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that Deon is a star of the Rebuild in Christchurch, and meets all the requirements of WP:BIO, the first deletion request, not even I was aware of being interviewed by the LA Times. I am calling for an admin to remove the deletion request and leave the post on the website LukeChandlerNZ (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep I think he meets WP:N but I'd like to see a bit more about him somewhere so we can write a better bio. The LA Times interview pushes it over IMO (author appears to be a regular staff member--it's not a random person). Hobit (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updating to keep based on Schwede66's recent source (below). Hobit (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems most if not all of the new references are not directly about the subject. Some are awards where he's simply listed as being awarded the award. Others are pure opinion - ie Newspaper calls him Hero. About the only saving grace would be the LA Times reference, but one reference does not seem to be enough on it's own. Caffeyw (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Caffeyw. I'm just not seeing anything where notability has clearly & significantly changed since the first AFD consensus to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the LA Times interview wasn't known during the first AfD. Given it's the best source, that's a pretty big change. Hobit (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah. Firstly, that was from last year, so it hardly indicates any shift in notability in the last few weeks since the AFD. Besides, it's more a reference for Rebuild Christchurch than for him personally. There's not a lot of info we can really build a BLP on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree it existed then, but apparently it wasn't in the article then and it certainly wasn't discussed at the AfD. So it's new to us (assuming that is true). Hobit (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm aware that there's not a lot of WP:BIO material from legitimate sources available on him; having personally seen the progress and impact Deon has made with http://www.rebuildchristchurch.co.nz both in the Christchurch community and for the Christchurch rebuild in general, I have to agree with Hobit that it falls under WP:N until more information on him can be verified and added. CJPCNZ 10:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — CJPCNZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Neutral In the first AfD, I voted 'delete', but with further references, I have changed my stance to neutral. I note, however, that the creator of the article appears to have a CoI, as I have explained to him on his talk page. Schwede66 21:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there's some coverage in The Press today that even includes some biographical material. He applied the age-old, but rarely applied trick of putting a nomination forward on the first possible date, and that almost always guarantees news coverage. Well done! Schwede66 20:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have gone back to the source and yes, it was the day National opened their nominations. The relevant facts (as far as this deletion discussion is concerned) stand, though - there's news coverage with some bio details. Schwede66 18:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I have to agree with Hobit that it falls under WP:N until more information on him can be verified and added." I think that comment explains it all, fails WP:BIO for now, read LA Times source which is a passing mention really. However looking at the sources Rebuild Christchurch looks like a valid article topic that would make it meet GNG (and leave a small mention about Swiggs), but that would totally complete rewrite. Secret account 03:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a look at his page seems to have plenty of sources cited (that aren't all primary or unreliable) for this relatively young individual... I see lasting coverage and plently of growth in the number of available sources as he does not seemed to have stopped in his efforts to do things that will be covered. There is enough for a keep now, and I believe there will be even more to come. Technical 13 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's attracted enough attention to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there are sources and he's attracted attention, the article can't seem to use information from the sources to make him appear notable in the actual Wikipedia article. He "collated information from a variety of sources and placed this information in an easy to understand format," but no one seems to care enough to say what information he collated; it's so vague; like everything in this article. Locations of lost cats? Moment magnitudes? Prices of cheap gasoline? He collated something not that notable, it seems. This article says he helped people in the aftermath of an earthquake in which thousands of other people helped people. It is mostly about him going to school. The books cited in the article? Scott book is self-published, and the Hobbs book doesn't even have a publisher listed. Desperate attempt at promotion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:53, 5 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/withdrawn by nominator DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators[edit]

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

fails GNG -- unable to find significant RS coverage. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 16:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added various references. I think there is enough to establish that this organisation, operating under Royal Charter and mentioned in a key piece of UK financial conduct legislation, as well as its international dimension, meets WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice deal of source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This a riduculous nomination. This professional body is establsihed by Royal Charter, something that is no given lightly, and has existed for nearly a century. Having a Royal Charter should be enough to make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescind nomination much improved article, thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yvan Arpa[edit]

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

fails GNG. Only references I can find are blogs. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have added several references found via Highbeam. While I am wary that the luxury goods markets can involve press stories creating a mystique about firms' principal staff, I think these - in particular the April 2013 profile article in International Herald Tribune - may be just enough to meet basic notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified by AllyD. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the references supplied look independent ans significant, not just blogs. So GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 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 per WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rosewood Festival[edit]

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

Non-notable music festival. Article was created by founder of the festival. The only sources I can find are not independent (i.e. from websites associated with the acts that performed). The acts that performed are almost entirely red-linked articles, with the few existing articles tagged for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 15:50, 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 DELETE G3 (hoax). UtherSRG (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taurens[edit]

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

This article appears to be a hoax. Google results appear to mostly be about a fictional creature in World of Warcraft, and the genus is not listed at this list. wctaiwan (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Those few sites that do consider it genuine seem to have copied it from us, one even acknowledging so. —Soap— 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 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. Closed early per snowball clause I have no doubt in my mind that this will be the result after seven days. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Course (meal)[edit]

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

PROD (WP:NOTDICT) removed by page creator. TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the nominator would care to put their nomination in English? The guide to deletion states, in part, "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." You didn't even bother to link the term "PROD". Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although, not being a newbie myself I did understand it and I agree with the reasons given when the prod was declined, this could easily be expanded far beyond a mere definition, and there are already other articles on specific courses such as entree. It may be worth considering merging some of them together in a parent article on the concept of courses. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC),[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "the nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion", and so there's no case to answer. Warden (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator advances the WP:NOTDICDEF argument for deletion, so a speedy keep shouldn't necessarily apply. A snowball close looks imminent, though. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping a shortcut isn't advancing an argument, it's just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. And the page doesn't resemble a dictionary entry in any way so that's WP:SK, "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". Warden (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give it time to expand. They teach about courses in all the food classes in cooking schools and whatnot. Read a book on fine dinning, they talk about the courses, and what is proper. Dream Focus 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. You can find the concept of course discussed everywhere in books etc. It is quite surprising and embarrassing that we didn't have this before. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right? I was doing work on meal and related articles and wikilinked to course (meal)... redlink?? Went to course... nothing? Really? Glad to help, that may be the last real article I ever start, we've got just about everything else! Red Slash 03:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We actually have a lot of notable content still to cover. Look at lists of extinct animal and plants genera if you need suggestions for new articles to create! --cyclopiaspeak! 07:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Beeblebrox explained things well, and I agree. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of room for expansion as a logical encyclopedia article--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per above. Unlike many DICDEFs, this one's expandable. Ansh666 01:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm really trying to understand this nomination (but can't). Stalwart111 05:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have plenty of related articles (Full course dinner, Dish (food), Entrée, Dessert etc). If someone can find the references, it is also worth noting that serving meals in courses is by far from universal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's Head (novel)[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This book just isn't notable. The only remotely feasible looking sources are these two and neither are usable because the author is associated with both the OU (as a former student) and the HNS (as a member). The book has a better presentation than your average self-published book, but in the end it still doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not believe that a book is likely to be notable where it does not have a proper publisher. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually a book being self-published doesn't automatically mean non-notable. Amy Fisher's "If I Knew Then" got a rather substantial amount of press when she released it through iUniverse. Hugh Howey's WOOL is another good example of a notable self-published series. He did so well that he eventually got picked up by a mainstream publisher for print copies, but was known even before that point. What Color is Your Parachute? is another one that fell within those lines. I don't think that you meant for your words to come across as "self-published means non-notable", but that's sort of how it comes across. You might want to rephrase your argument. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weirs Lane[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a street directory. Just another road full of houses. TheLongTone (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Weirs Lane is a 200 Metre (approx) stretch of non-notable road, that then becomes Donnington Bridge Road, which is another article the same editor has just created. That article is also, in its current format, a suitable candidate for AfD. However there is a possibility of retaining the article titles and converting them into redirects to the Donnington Bridge article, where the road name changes could be mentioned. Another possibility is that this Weirs Lane article could be redirected to the 'Donnington Bridge Road' article, which could then be expanded for a tenuous possibility of notability, in that it may have been an Ancient Roman Road with a Ford (crossing). see:- this website article. As the article states, if that is proven, it would be notable as a possible origin of the 'ford' in 'Oxford'. It should also be noted that the City of Oxford Rowing Club has its clubhouse and slipway adjacent to Donnington Bridge Road, on the southern side of Donnington Bridge, on the eastern bank of The Isis. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I think Weirs Lane should be merged into Donnington Bridge Road and I have now expanded that article. I approve of Weirs Lane to be redirected to Donnington Bridge Road. EverythingGeography (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be redirected to Weir's Falls (Hamilton, Ontario). Peter James (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever for? It's not in Ontario, it's in Oxford (England). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mention of a Weirs Lane in that article. Is the non-notable road in Oxford the primary topic? Peter James (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is only what the linked article is about. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weir's Falls in Ontario has got absolutely nothing to do with Weirs Lane in Oxford. EverythingGeography (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no article called "Weirs Lane" there are mentions in two articles of different roads with this name. There isn't content to merge, so it doesn't have to be kept (and if it was, it could be moved). Why redirect to this one and not to the other? Peter James (talk) 12:50, 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Money as Debt[edit]

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

This was kept in a deletion discussion three years ago based on the existence of one sentence in one publication, and two negative paragraphs in Anthropology Today. This amount of sourcing simply does not meet our basic notability guidelines for a short film, and, tellingly, nothing new has come about in the three years since the initial discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. More sources speak toward this film other than the one the nom has chosen to dismiss. IF the the "only" independent reliable source speaking toward this film were the peer-reviewed academic journal Anthropology Today, we'd have concerns toward the film meeting WP:GNG and, as it is not a widely distributed theatrical release, most media have ignored it... usually because its topic is seen as not toeing their political line. Yet it has been well received, and even where it has been critiqued by "outside" journals (such as AT) they've still taken notice of it. Our notability guideline isn't based on it being praised or being true... but is in fact based on a film being discussed, whether positively or negatively. Perception by any that the film's content might be absolute nonsense is not a criteria that we use, and no more pertinent to a film article being kept or deleted than is the make-believe science of Star Wars or the magic of Harry Potter. In application of applicable criteria and even in recognition that documentary films rarely receive the coverage of mainstream blockbusters, this one does meet WP:NF through WP:GNG. Per WP:NRVE and WP:ATD, article and project will benefit from it remaining and being addressed over time and through regular editing using the many available sources even if some are in French (see WP:NONENG). That it has not been improved since its last keep, is a reason to do so through understanding of WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP... but not to delete through disagreeing with one of the article's many sources. We may also consider WP:NTEMP. We do not expect ANY topic to remain forever in the headlines. Wikipedia does not benefit from WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • So where are the specific sources? I don't see much in the way of reliable, non trivial sources about the subject, do you have specific sources in mind that do so? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is the work of a moment to find more detailed sources such as this book. The topic therefore passes our notability guideline easily. Warden (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a self-published book, and thus does not add to its notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems well-written enough for our purpose. But I browse a bit more and find another extensive account of the topic which we don't yet have in the article. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article actually has credible sources to back up this articles notability.Dwanyewest (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments presented by MQS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are problems with the article why weren't they addressed first in the talk page, before bypassing fellow editors and coming here? Since the topic is clearly the subject of scholarly work, there should be no reason to reject it on WP, solely because an editor has some personal conflict with the content. Kbrose (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problems on the article have to do with sources, not with "personal conflict with the content." Even now, we have a grand total of one substantial piece on the movie, and even then, it could be argued that the article is more about the filmmaker. I don't see the need for "multiple" nontrivial sources being addressed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Easily meets guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shrunk and struck, as these questions have been moved elsewhere,[21][22] Note: We all need to keep a watch on the article, as the nominator is taking his issues to it rather than to discussion. I just returned sourced material and the reliable sources used as references, that he removed due to feeling they were inappropriate. In my edit summary I suggested he take his concerns to WP:RSN. [23] Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As he appears to contend that two uses of an opinion piece sources were un-reliable for sourcing opinions in the context in which they were being used, he removed them again but at least this time he used some wax examples on the article's talk page. As reliability depends on several factors, and as we certainly expect to find opinions ON opinion websites, I will not involve myself in an edit war, but will myself take it WP:RSN. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inre: WP:RSN: I cannot quite tell if the nominator has issue with the source publishing it or the specific author whose written opinion was being quoted. The discussion has just been opened HERE. All are welcome. Best, Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have invited the nominator to THAT discussion to explain how Congressman Dennis Kucinich's authored public opinion is somehow invalid simply because of where he chose to publicly offer it. Cheers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, under WP:RSOPINION this should be acceptable as an alternate to what was removed:
In his authored article about the bailout as published in OpEdNews, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduces his article by encouraging readers to watch Paul Grignon's Money as Debt and opining that the film was "a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system."[1]
[1] ^ Dennis Kucinich, The Bailout and What's Next, October 1, 2008.OpEdNews. Retrieved August 25, 2013.
Suitable folks? Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:50, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Blogs, forums and stuff like Softpedia is all I get on Google. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 13:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 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 no consensus. This was such a heated debate with too much WP:WALLSOFTEXT that I admit I glanced over it for the most part, but clearly there isn't any consensus here, and I noted Steve Quinn extremely valid policy based keep comment regarding the original concerns of the nominator that wasn't rebutted in the end (while disagreeing with other keep commentators). Secret account 03:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture[edit]

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

Relatively new journal. No independent reliable sources about this journal, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This deletion discussion was posted immed. after this article was started. Per the mission of Wikipedia and the rationale for our guidelines, obviously the inclusion of this journal for encyclopedic coverage is merited.

    First, note that the religion of Mormonsism has as many self-described adherents, for example, as there are Jews in the U.S. Secondly, whereas scholarly journals themselves are rarely rarely the subject of news pieces yet this journal--one which, despite its stable of authors inclusion of many recognized authorities w/in the discipline, nonetheless is the sole independent/not LDS Church - affiliated LDS journal with a special emphasis on apologetics--already had received not merely mention but in-depth coverage in the sectarian Deseret News, in the secular Salt Lake Tribune and at Meridian Magazine, among other places. Additionally this journal's articles, in the mix at the new graduate programs specializing in this burgeoning new field (Ut.St.U., Clarement, Ut.ValleyUniv., a few others), are contained within appropriate data bases. So, bottom line, per WP's general notability guidelines there already exist sufficient sources in spades to indicate that this year-old journal is of renown w/in its field of Mormon studies. Likewise, per the essay (not a guideline) wp:Notability (academic journals):

    The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
    The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. [And]
    The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it's so reliable then why can't a search turn up more hits on reliable cites? Considered to be influential is opinion, not fact. Again if very influential why are there no hits during search? Per nom doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Caffeyw (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Daniel C. Peterson - I'm just not finding any significant secondary sources about this journal. Most of the references I'm finding in secondary sources are written by the journal's founder, which might as well be considered a primary sources. Of the small handful of secondary sources written by people unaffiliated with the journal, most of them deal with the rather dramatic split at FARMS that prompted the journal's creation rather than anything about the journal itself. I'm not finding any evidence of this journal's "renown" in any way. I haven't found a single academic paper, even in among LDS scholarship, that has referenced a single one of its articles. To be fair, this journal has published a grand total of six issues as of this writing. Therefore, this might just be a matter of being too soon. As of right now though, it doesn't meet any of the criteria that Hodgdon claims it does. 1) As near as I can tell, it hasn't been cited in another publication of any kind. 2) The journal hasn't been around long enough to have any verifiable influence at all mostly because 3) the journal doesn't have any significant history. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative, creating The Interpreter Foundation and merging it there seems to make some sense. But the journal isn't notable on it's own, so I would say merge or delete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the same thing, actually, but that article would suffer the same problem in that there's a lack of secondary, independent, and reliable sources for it. At least, not yet. I split the difference and thought maybe a merge with founder Daniel C. Peterson, who is unquestionably very notable, would be a good compromise until the foundation and/or journal get legs of their own after which new articles can be split off. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the field of Mormon Studies Interpreter is notable; however if it may does not yet meet wp:NJournals, at least in part because it is only just over one year old, so it would then seems reasonable that the content be merged into (and the article link redirected to) Daniel C. Peterson until there are additional references that better support a stand-alone article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt - The general notability guidelines are the final arbiter. In cases where popular press accounts don't mention some academic journal, then we go by whether the journal is cited by peers, bottom line. I.e., Is where Wikipedia is now that an paper-published entity that is (/aspires to be...?) a scholarly journal must clear higher hurdles of notability above those that must be cleared by, say, a blog-type website (say, Mormon Stories Podcast) that is but a "popularizer" of scholariship but one mentioned in news sources?

    Btw the whole, generally wiki - blue linked editorial crew at Mormon Studies Review has moved over to the new venue, not just Peterson. (Well, either The Brethren -- Mormon corridor - speak for "the Church" -- got tired of there being apologetics with quasi-official standing (there is no official LDS apologetics or even theology, by the way), so decided to have BYU's Mormon Studies Review only do straight scholarship--or else the dean or whathaveyou at BYU's Maxwell Institute preferred a more "hard scholarship" approach.) In any case, for whatever the reason, the new version of M.Studies Review is to be somewhat apologetics-light and the crew that edited it moved their apologetics-heavy enterprise over to the new, independently issued Intepreter. Note that, parallel to this decision, the infamous Dehlin affair occurred: namely, within the very first issue of the Interpreter, a review of the Mormon Stories Podcast was published that generated much controversy among M.Studies scholars because its basic criticism was that the podcast was not apologetic/faith-promoting enough. As one example of the commentary the affair generated, see this essay over at Patheos.com but there was a raft of others, elsewhere, as well. ....--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another link to commentary on Greg Smith's Interpreter review piece.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Salt Lake Tribune mention of the journal is clearly an independent source, it is hostile if anything, and the SL Tribune is normally considered reliable. This journal clearly is a notable work. We clearly should have an article on it. Mormon Studies is a growing field, and this journal is clearly a natable work in the field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which mention? Could you provide a link? The link to the SLT in the article does not mention the Interpreter. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mention" is indeed the correct word here. If ever I've seen an in-passing mention of something, this is it. --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about developments in Mormon Studies, one of the mentioned developments is the creation of this journal. It is clearly an recognition that this journal exists and is worth noting. Your attempt to pretend this is not a source that can be used ignored the reality that is exactly the type of sources that we expect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. And to paraphrase what you said above: This journal clearly is not a notable work. We clearly should not have an article on it. WP:TOOSOON obviosuly applies. --Randykitty (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's an academic journal derived as a split from a notable academic journal, it's notable. If it were the successor to the entire journal, we would simply move the article to the new title, for it's our practice to keep the article at the current title for uncomplicated title changes (unlike libraries, which make a new entry for each substantial title change) . But if it's a split, oir a mov e of the editorial board but not the sponsorship, or a disputed ownership or split within a discipline or anything complicated, it's clearer with a new article. Normally we wait till an academic journal is indexed, but we can cover a new one if it's clearly important enough for that. In a situation like this, it is.
The reason for the special notability criterion for academic journals is that the ordinary GNG criteria do not apply. But when they do apply, they're an alternate reasons covered by the GNG. It's just like WP:PROF--if researchers are notable under these special criteria, they're notable, but they can also be notable because of popular reputation if it meets GNG regardless of whether the academic world would consider them notable. This has happened, for example, when a young research makes a discovery that is picked up enthusiastically by newspapers & magazines. (It's reasonable, because if the public sees the news articles they will want the background, just as for anyone else covered by newspapers & magazines.)
Incidentally, there is in my opinion no adequate notability criterion at WP for popular magazines of any sort--we have to use common sense and judgement, and in general we do.
I hope the objection to including this journal is not ideological, but when I see a dispute about anything LDS connected, I know enough about what can happen around here to wonder. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1/ As far as I can see, this is not a split off of another journal. 2/ Even if it is and if that other journal would be notable, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. 3/ This is not a rename of an existing journal, else I would indeed just have moved the old one to the new name and we wouldn't be at AfD. 4/ "we can cover a new one if it's clearly important enough for that" is a completely subjective argument and not based in any policy. 5/ "I hope the objection to including this journal is not ideological": I hope this remark was not directed against me. This is not the kind of arguments that I expect of DGG who should know me better by now. --Randykitty (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randyditty said, "[...T]his is not a split off another journal."

    Someone should e-mail Peterson. Then he can so he contact the Review's publisher's security, so they can carry his cardboard box of stuff back up to his old editorial suite. Haha - Like they'd have such digs. <sighs> Snippet from the Peggy Stack Trib piece: "'The time has come for us to take the Review in a different direction,' Maxwell Institute Executive Director M. Gerald Bradford wrote in a June 17 email to Peterson, who was out of the country at the time."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth the only ongoing wp:BIAS/wikiinstitutional disconnect I see w rgd to wiki's coverage is merely that editors with more exposure with whatever subculture contextualize news about its current events just a bit better. In the current case, Peggy Stack, the Trib's "Mormon beat" reporter, finds some details "dog-bites-man" when boiling events down for her intended, secular audience. So, although she will dedicate a phrase or two in mention the careers of the notable LDS apologists at BYU, she's not going to embroider her pieces with any accolades about them. What she does however wax poetic about are the roses being thrown to secularists over at the Maxwell Institute. That indeed is man-bites dog. But, if somebody slows down their speed reading a notch or two they will see that the WhoWhatWhereWhen&How of the genesis of Peterson et al's new adventure is right there in Stack's piece. Here is the take down (emphasis mine) from the Interpreter crowd's POV:

    In the past, those who did Mormon Studies got their training in other fields and pursued Mormon Studies, initially on the side. This is true of most of the bigger names in Mormon Studies such as Richard Bushman (American history), Terryl Givens (comparative literature), Arthur Henry King (Shakespeare), Leonard Arrington (economics), John Sorenson (anthropology), Hugh Nibley (history), Dan Peterson (Arabic), Lou Midgley (political philosophy), Noel Reynolds (political philosophy), and Jack Welch (law). At one time most of these, such as Nibley, Sorenson, Bushman, Givens, Peterson, Reynolds, Welch, and Midgley, were associated with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute but the Institute’s current management has decided to go in a different direction. link

    This "new direction" is that Stack describes, in the second paragraph of "Split Emerges Among Mormon Scholars," as:

    "A year after the two sides publicly parted company over the direction of the Mormon Studies Review, each group has launched its own writings, with separate boards of editors and mission statements."

    Its not about who is a quicker study. Again, it's merely that busy Wikipedians who might merely skim a lengthy piece about a subject foreign to them, looking for the title of a the publication "Interpreter" will only observe a remark in passing and zero coverage whereas those comprehending the piece in its full see an in-depth treatment of the split methinks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rant above convinces me that you have an agenda and that you're not here to create a neutral encyclopedia. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a notability guideline for academic journals? — Bdb484 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments articulated above by DGG, John Pack Lambert, and Hodgdon's secret garden. There's more coverage in popular sources about the founding of this journal than is typical for academic journals, and it's evident that this publication is already of some significance to the LDS world. Since much of the coverage also relates to Daniel C. Peterson, I can understand why some of the !voters have suggested a merge to his article, but on balance I think it's been sufficiently explained why it's better to have a separate article for the journal. If this is kept, I hope the article will be expanded a bit to discuss, in NPOV terms, the reasons for its founding and its stance within LDS scholarship. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said "it's evident that this publication is already of some significance to the LDS world". You see, that's that rub. There's several people saying that it is evident, but no one is showing. What we need for this discussion is showing. Basically, we need citations from independent, reliable sources and there just aren't any of any significance. Several have pointed out a single mention in a single local newspaper, which was pretty run-of-the-mill. If that's all there is, then there's really nothing. I have nothing against this journal or anyone involved in it. But it has really only published a small handful of issues and really hasn't gotten any notable coverage, even within the field of Mormon Studies. Of course, this might change in a year or two when people take notice and it starts to develop a reputation and some notability in its own right. From there, citations and references will naturally flow. However, that hasn't happened yet. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, to be fair, the Deseret News ran this article [25]. Anyway, you can't exactly dismiss the Salt Lake Tribune as just a "local paper". It is a regional paper of some respect. I know you will try to find problems with the Deseret News article, but they did run an article. However the Deseret News also ran this article [ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765594746/FAIR-Conference-ends-as-new-Mormon-scholarly-journal-begins.html?pg=all] by Joseph Walker, so it is clearly an indep3endent reference in an independent publication, the people creating Interpreter have no control over editorial decisions at the DN. So we have definite notice in the two leading newspapers in Utah. This is a noted and paid attention to publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tribune may not be a "local paper", but its "coverage" of the journal is just an in-passing mention. The first Deseret News article given above looks like an opinion piece written by the Peterson and is not independent. However, I agree that the second Deseret News article is more extensive. It's thin, it doesn't satisfy WP:NJournals, but it does seem enough to just get by WP:GNG, which trumps the rest. I therefore change my !vote to Weak keep. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given you are the original nominator for this AFD, are you officially withdrawing this nomination? - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that would be inappropriate, as there are other delete !votes and a closing admin might still decide that those carry the day. --Randykitty (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granting DN, one article doesn't really pass WP:GNG in my book, but I'm not fanatical about it. I'm fairly confident that this journal will eventually gain the reputation needed to pass WP:GNG and WP:NJournals both. I'm still in the WP:TOOSOON camp, for now. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't disagree with you. I, too, don't see the hurry. It would've been better to wait a year or two, until notability is established without any doubt and make a solid article that doesn't need propping-up by irrelevant blog "references" and such. AS I said, it's thin. It may or may not satisfy GNG, which is why I went for a "weak" keep. I'm curious what the closing admin will have to say about this issue. I do want to say this, though: although DGG came with the (in my eyes unfounded) accusation that people might try to get this deleted because it is LDS related. Frankly, I get the strong opposite impression. --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt - For the love of Mike. It's a sad, sad crew around here. All you have to do is to press the Scholar button on the top of this page to come up with this citation from Harvard Divinity School: [26]. The Books button comes up with 3,140 hits for the full title of the journal. Furthermore Interpreter itself is obviously listed within databases as a scholarly journal. For god's sake isn't there some kind of bad stuff that's supposed to happen to editors who make baldly false statements out of laziness slash prejudice/wp:BIAS (see likewise eg here)?

    Folks, can you hear yourselves? Don't just categorize something as nothing worth perusing. Greet all subjects with curiosity and intelectual vigor. As just yet one additional example, isn't it a truly bizarre breach of Wiki standards to dismiss coverage of subjects within not one but two articles in the S.L. Trib and on top of that then to dismiss any coverage at all of a subject such as LDS apologetics w/in the D. News, en toto? Religious features in the D. News, the paper of record for M'mnism, are published within the national printed Sunday edition of the News along with its local [sic] Salt Lake City edition, each with approx. half the rag's tot. circulation of about 178,000. By way of comparison, the international business daily the London-based Financial Times has a combined print-and-digital circ. of 600,000 whereas the Christian Science Monitor isn't even printed on paper any more [added later: is now a weekly magazine, with a circulation of about 600,000]. As for the D. News's digital subscriptions, it currently ranks as the 22nd online-subscribed newspaper in the U.S. {link} In fact, I dare say, it's even odder is for WP editors to poohpooh any well-established religion beat reporter out of hand (as Randykitty did when earlier this year he first tossed out the Trib's P. Stack piece out of the Wiki article about the being-revamped Review ... along with an interview with the director of the Maxwell Institute on the Institute's own website, which he rejected as only a newspaper piece and an impertinent blog (see diff). Geez folks! When a renowned religion reporter, think Sally Quinn, can't be trusted to get stuff right because the lofty subject is academic and should the say (theoretical) main journal of Adventist apologetics cum Adventist studies be branched off into its own, independent publication and if we then have Wikipedians afraid to read such sources in a comprehensive manner but instead to merely perform perfunctory word/phrase searches in them--well, we've a problem, in my opinion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I told you this before, so sorry if it is a repeat: you might benefit from reading WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. And with that remark, I terminate my participation in this debate. --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. However I hope you now agree that if news sources say a journal won't publish orig. scholarship but will contain reviews of developments within an academic field that this fact can certainly be contributed to a Wikipedia article about that journal, no? Thanks. [Added later: See Talk:Review journal.]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion on the article, Hodgdon. Personal attacks and accusing people of prejudice are not constructive. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This journal needs more time (per WP:TOOSOON) to meet notability standards WP:N or WP:NJournals. I agree that coverage of this topic on Wikipedia should probably wait a year or two, and perhaps by then it will have received signifigant coverage. Significant coverage means more than passing mention, which is all I have seen, along with blog entries, except for one or two paragraphs in a local paper. Furthermore, the blogs cited as references are not considered reliable sources in this instance, because these do not fit the criteria for reliable sources on Wikipedia.

Also, the actual topic covered by all of these sources seems to be the need for more coverage of the LDS Apologetics discipline; and not this journal, which is the actual concern of this AfD debate. Notability of the editor or staff members is not inherited by the journal. Additionally, I am not seeing any evidence of a split, and even if that is the case, notability is still not inherited. Hence, this "new" journal must achieve notoriety on its own merits. This can be accomplished simply by coverage of the topic, and not merely passing mention, by independent reliable sources. Independent reliable sources can also be selective databases per WP:NJournals. However, this journal is not listed in any selective databases.

Finally, I am not seeing widespread coverage of this journal in either Google Scholar or Google Books. Google scholar lists only Volume 3 of this journal ("Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture, Volume 3 (2013)"), which cannot be considered a reliable source; and one "Journal of Comparative Theology" article that cites the "Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture" only once. This does not demonstrate a significant impact in its field, defined broadly or narrowly construed.

Google Books shows no independent coverage of the topic and no citations for this journal. Please take a look here. The first entry is a link to this journal's website. The next three are the three volumes of this journal. None of these qualify as independent or reliable sources. After that there is no coverage and there are no citations. The only reason for 3,210 hits is because it seems that Google Books is parsing the search term, "Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture", into words and phrases, and then supplying an entry. Apparently, there are many and varied topics covered by Google Books when using this search term. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for vacillating, but ShinmaWa's comments and (especially) Steve Quinn's detailed analysis make me go back to my original "delete" !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here's what I think: peer-reviewed academic journals should be automatically in, period. If you wanna call that logic a manifestation of IGNORE ALL RULES, fine. Here's why though. This is an encyclopedia based upon footnoting to so-called reliable sources. The highest order of these are peer-reviewed academic journals. There are hundreds and probably thousands of them, and we as Wikipedias occasionally need to make use of a roadmap to see the terrain. If somebody cites this journal or that there are sometimes circumstances when further investigation is necessary. Wikipedia articles on these journals should be part of our investigative process — a quick and easy part. If we're gonna go tossing articles on journals just because their sourcing is sub-optimal or their information is largely self-sourced, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. A comprehensive encyclopedia needs to contain this information. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry to disagree with User:Carrite. Wikipedia has set a bar for acceptable inclusion. That bar is notability, and in the case of academic journals, WP:NJournals is useful. Also, notability has been built on consensus.
It appears the main reason for the consensus of notability is that we are "an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia". Our goal is the creation of " a free, reliable encyclopedia"; and I think our goal of a "reliable encyclopedia" needs to emphasized.
Furthermore, we seem to be competing with other Encyclopedias, such as Britannica, to have reliable information. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes just another unreliable website; millions of people's personal blogs, or discussion platforms consisting of good ideas and unsubstantiated material.
Without notability we become a soapbox, a platform for promotion, a collection of random information, a directory, a catalog , maybe some sort of newspaper (sensational or otherwise), guidebook, handbook, or a place to test out new fiction, and so on. So, I think we have to draw the line somewhere, and we, as a community, already have drawn that line. Pertaining to the journal "Interpreter", as has been stated above, it has no discernible impact in its given field, and has not achieved notoriety. Sorry to say, but Wikipedia is not the place to give this journal free public relations, or promotion. Also, Wikipedia is not meant to act as a press release, with the oldest and latest updates pertaining to a given online publication. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, based on what I wrote above, it can be seen that Wikipedia has a purpose. It is that purpose which keeps editors focused on the task at hand; which is building a dependable encyclopedia. If people want to find out about the academic journal "Interpreter" or read any of its articles, all anyone has to do is go to the web site. We cannot be a repository of academic journals we like, or journals that we think should be here.. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NJournals is not a guideline and that you believe it is reveals supreme ignorance of the workings here at Wikipedia. It is, rather, an essay by wikipedians with an interest in documenting the meritorious path for otherwise notable journals not covered in press reports to pass the bar to inclusion. You lost me when you claim the journal was not split from M. Studies Review. Here is the dictionary definition of split. If this was not split from there, with the entire editorship and board of the previous journal immediately setting up shop under a different monicker, that of a new-founded foundation for apologetics and related scholarship, then there are no journals that have ever been split. The Salt Lake Tribune is not a local paper, with concern to Mormon studies. It is the only place where secular journals document the happenings in Mormonism (the D. News is obviously sectarian).

If a subject is of interest to religious Mormons (the most religious and conservative adherents, according to research, of all American religions. Peterson founded the first journal of apologetcs, FARMS Review, which later came under the umbrella of BYU. Now that his crew's journal is independent again, it is the sole place specializing in this genre. (There is also one indie journal out there that specializing in LDS theology, such as it is (as theology, per se, is not a very common field for LDS to specialize in.) It's like this, folks. If a field of scholarship of interest to religious Jews (for me to resort to a reductio ad Judeaum here) receives coverage in the primary Hebrew newspaper in Israel that religious Jews read along with coverage in the Jerusalem Post, if someone dismisses the same as merely local coverage this is patent wp:BIAS (and I don't care if the religion in question is Salinger's beloved Vedantaism or Jews for Jesus. The name of the game is cultural diversity, man. Get with the program!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to politely, but strongly, remind you again that accusing editors who have a different position than you of being motivated by religious bias has absolutely no place in this discussion. Please keep this discussion on the merits of the article and only this article. Thank you. PS: WP:ONLYESSAY -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am more concerned about the tendency of some to crush information they may not like through the deletion mechanism than I am about the possibility that we might lean too much upon self-sourcing of articles for academic journals, myself. Not to say that's actually happening in this case, but it is a 20x greater concern of mine in general... Moreover, WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline, WP:IGNOREALLRULES is a policy — a higher level of organizational law. There's no objective reason why "Keep Because We Should Keep" is an invalid argument in terms of policy. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. I mainly discussed notability per WP:N, or if you like WP:GNG. I only mentioned WP:NJournals. However, that criteria (WP:NJournals) is still relevant. Any academic journal indexed in selective databases will pass AFD. Same with any journal that has an impact factor; it will pass AFD. Are there any comments pertaining to notability (as described in my above post) , such as what Wikipedia cannot be, and what is the underlying goal behind editing here? Thanks. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
cmt - Steve, you ignore my point about the journal being sourced to be a split from a notable journal and ignore my point about the Salt Lake Tribune (not to mention the D. News) being more than a local paper with regard to the coverage of Mormonism, just as Tibet is more than a local spot w rgd the coverage of Tibetan Buddhism and instead respond only to the point about what is or is not a guideline. Look, boredom is a low level of disgust. If this is the only problem being encountered here, fine. This is admirable. However, if the disinclination to delve into the sources and ascertain what they are describing is anything at all related to the kind of seat-of-the-pants dismissal that Tom Cruise would give to sources within the social science of psychology, then we would have a real problem. And, when people keep making obviously false statements due to not engaging with the issues, not getting a real grip on what is going on w/in M. studies. It goes like this. (1) You claim there are no books that reference the journal. (2) Then, I go and find some. (3) Then I observe to myself that you have obviously been arguing from not only your own opinions but your own facts, to borrow a phrase from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. (4) Then, people who have heard your false claim believe you and chime in in agreement with your conclusion based on falsehoods. -- You see, if this is repeated over and over and over again, my reaction becomes that your approach is willful, is based on some kind of--- ... ... bias? But, I'll edit my statement and change my estimation to simple boredom, per wp:AGF.

Let's say that a book published by Signature Books references the journal. Then you say that Signature, a publisher of peer-reviewed scholarship, is not notable so can't be used. Then I go to a journal that references the importance of Signature Books as a publisher within Mormon studies. And then you say ..... It just goes on and on and on and on.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken time to google this much but, first of all, all of the Interpreter's issues are listed at Google books, not just the third volume. So that is an um mistake. Furthermore, offhand, for example Here the Mormon studies graduate program at Utah Valley Univ. extolls Interpreter as a source. Also see a syllabus here. A couple clicks of my mouse would lead to similar recommendations from the M. studies grad program at Utah State Univ., the one at Claremont in Calif., syllabuses for the M. studies courses taught at the Grad. Theological Union at Berkeley, and so on.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hogdon, I don't how I lost you after saying there is no split, because although I did say it, I was not the first one to say it. I meant the journal; formerly entitled "FARMS" (now Mormon Studies Review) does not appear to have physically created a spin off journal or a split off journal. I can see that the current editor for Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, Peterson, came from Mormon Studies Review, where he was in the capacity of editor in chief there. So, I am now guessing that Peterson's move from one journal to the other is being interpreted as a split. I also agree Peterson is a notable person, and probably has a profound depth of knowledge. But does this mean the journal is notable just because he and maybe some of the other editors and maybe some of the executive board are well versed and knowledgeable in fields that pertain to this field? Not necessarily, according to WP:NOTINHERITED.
Furthermore, "Interpreter" has no connection to BYU, even though someone here seemed to indicate that it does. It is independently published by The Interpreter Foundation. However, the former "FARMS" journal (now Mormon Studies Review) is published by the "Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship". So these do not share the same publisher, which is further evidence against a physical splitting off. The only thing that happened here is Peterson moved from one academic journal to the other.
As for books discussing this topic, I provided a link to Google Books [27] that shows no independent coverage of the "Interpreter", nor are there any citations in any books. We both did the same search. Can you provide some links to books that discuss or cite this journal? Believe me; I would be happy if they exist. Sorry to say, but I think that Hodgson has not reviewed the books listed at Google Books, which follow the first three volumes of this journal.
I did not refer to the Salt Lake newspaper as a local paper. The one possible acceptable article in that newspaper might not be construed as an independent source because it is Mr. Peterson describing or promoting this journal. I agree that this article is worth reading, but it doesn't mean it is independent coverage. If I offended by saying the Desert News is a local newspaper, then I apologize. It just seems to be a local newspaper compared to the Salt Lake newspaper. Lastly, reading the content of these articles does not change my view. Mormon studies in general, and the discipline of LDS Apologetics seems to be outside the scope of this discussion, although I am sure they are worthy of study for interested persons.
Finally, I appreciate the links to a syllabus and university course. The course and syllabus shows that one article from this journal is recommended for reading. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For interested parties, there is a very good article in the "Interpreter" authored by Mr. Peterson that gives insight into how the split away from the former "FARMS" journal, and the "Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship", and the BYU religious studies program, came about. Furthermore, Mr. Peterson intends to show, or at least discuss, how apologetics can work within the context of scholarship. I say intends to show because I have only gotten as far as page xxii and I have not finished reading the paper. I won't be able to finish just now as I am too tired. Hopefully later. However, this is very interesting. Here is the article: Peterson, Daniel C. "The Role of Apologetics in Mormon Studies". Volume 2 (2012). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the following-linked journal piece (perhaps shorter than the interesting sounding one Peterson published in his own ragin the Interpreter you link above?) was submitted to a book containing articles covering developments in the field of sociology of religion in 2007 and that provides a quick overview of the just-birthed sub-sub-field of M. Studies: Mauss, Armand L. (2007), Blasi, Anthony J. (ed.), "The Emergence of Mormon Studies in the Social Sciences", American Sociology of Religion: Histories, 13, Brill Publishers: 121–150. You're right, I don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia today. (I do so when I've a moment to get lost in researching and the give and take of arguingdiscussion w other editors 'cos it helps me um relax (or so I claim to myself; sometimes I get rather agitated /'~)/<winks> ).) By the way, the Interpreter doesn't exactly have a surfeit of scholars on its board from outside BYU. In fact it is only "peer reviewed" in the very limited sense that those who do reviews of submissions must OK them... all of whom reviewers actually are the editors of the Interpreter themselves or else are intimately connected with this journal. That was one of the reasons BYU wanted to bring in outside voices and to install a true peer-review for a new review journal which would then almost entirely sidestep the apologetic aspects which previously had been FARMS Review's bread and butter. All this is in the Peggy Stack Trib piece: namely the two boards where there was previously one, two journals where there was prev. one, two groups of ed.s where there was prev. one, the names of the two respective journals, the firing of Peterson while he was in Israel for stuff related to his other career as an Islamic studies scholar and the hiring of Fluhman to publish the new regime's entity blah blah blah.

And the Deseret News is actually more National by far than the Tribune. Both newspapers have articles republished in other newspapers when they relate to Mormonism: the Trib's when they provide its in-depth "indie" coverage of um "the Church" and, less often, the D. News's (say: when the News, say, reports on researches w rgd some person's ancestries from folks over at the Mormons' huuuge geneological library). The News doesn't get into intramural LDS controversies. Peterson--and, I believe, Hamblin (who no longer edits at the Interpreter)--are also columnists for the Sunday D. News along w their being BYU profs, etc. The way the News deals with LDS apologetics is to turn their press over to Peterson or Hamblin rather than to risk some staff writer writing something that eventually would be considered controversial. Mormonism is a very conservative and, I dare say, anti-intellectual religion. (But than again, I'm Buddhist.) But, in any case, the Sunday News has a National edition that is mailed out to LDS diaspora and so shows up in mailboxes across the U.S. Again as many subscribers to the Sunday D. News are outside the Mormon corridor (UT/so. ID & so. WY/eastern CO/places in NV, AZ & NM) as are within, making it a national publication with a humungous readership among Mormonism. (My mom used to have it sent to my mailbox. I read a few of Orson Scott Card's now controverial columns in that venue, which have generated incredible heat in the few years since he wrote them, at the height of the Prop 8 controversies.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • After reading half the above "Interpreter-Peterson" article that I previously linked, and reading what you wrote (Hodgdon), I agree there is definitely a connection to BYU. The editors and board members from both academic journals are BYU professors. This makes for an interesting situation.
I didn't realize that this now creates "two boards where there was previously one, two journals where there was prev. one, two groups of editors where there was prev. one, [and] the names of the two respective journals".
Actually, I think this is quite amazing. At least, Peterson, his editors, and board members have no problem taking up and running with the apologetics banner. At least they have managed to come out of the fray with a renewed purpose (even though I know nothing about LDS apologetics). Also, I see now that some or all the editors and board members did actually migrate from the former "FARMS" journal to the "Interpreter". I've been thinking that this is probably quite a notable topic if someone wanted to create a Wikipedia article about it.
The fact that the Desert News is widely circulated via mail and so on among Mormons and the Mormon diaspora is interesting; especially, when they count on Peterson, Hamblin and other BYU professors to report on, or discuss, LDS topics (including apologetics). To me, this indicates the D. News is counting on "experts" in their field. It makes sense. I am sure this "FARMS" controversy has caused quite an upset within the Mormon community. I'll try to get back to you about the other stuff. --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be clear, last night I read somewhere that Peterson is actually a regular writer, or on staff, for the D.News. So, it is easy to see that he would write on LDS topics. And I did read one article written by him in the D, News pertaining to the "Interpreter". Steve Quinn (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too long of cooment (sorry!) - Hey! Quinn coincidentally is a big name in M. Studies; see D. Michael Quinn. I haven't read [have now read] Peterson's Interpreter piece about its genesis [Edited: giving the rationale for its existence; it is quite excellent! :~)] but hope to do so now.

There is not a corollary piece w rgd the new regime's M.Studies Review (MSR), I'm sure. I guess they are still in the process of figuring out what the new MSR is gonna be about. Unlike at the Interpreter, of course. Which, more than a little ironically, is actually only a continuation of the mission/modus operandi of the old MSR! Um, which of course had just been renamed the MSR by the Maxwell Inst., its prev. monicker having been FARMS Review.

!..... Really the old name shows a lot about what the old FARMS Rev. was all about. As well as the Interpreter now is all about, for that matter. That is, few non-LDS of course dip as much as a pinkie into LDS apologetics so the misleading acronym caused zero problems. Then the world overtook 'em--what, with the emergence of objective M. Studies as a displine at non-LDS affil. educational institutions and all. IMO because the institutional Church just loves acronyms the acronym FARMS (it stands for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) was saying that yeah it was (or originally was) an independent foundation but that it nonetheless hoped to be as helpful to the institutional Church as possible.

But then after FARMS was brought onboard BYU/Maxwell, yet another foundation, one that would remain independent to the Church, was created to sponsor its various popular symposia(*) and the like. And its acrnym is the more straightforward FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research).

When BYU (I should say CES: Church Educational System) scholars or Church History Dept. scholars try to engage in non-apologetic scholarship the greater academy looks askance at their efforts because of the presumed insidious influence of the Church on their output. To counteract this impression, every once in awhile the Church opens up and hires scholars who have established their scholarly bonefides elsewhere. Sometimes the Church eventually comes to push these same scholars out to some back water or else to purge them. See New Mormon History.
To save space I've posted the rest of my commetary here: Talk:Mormon Studies Review#New board's makeup.

____________
(*)The most popular "leftward", for lack of a better term, symposia are those sponsored by Sunstone. And, the Trib's Peggy Stack, who did post grad work at GTU Berkeley, at one time used to edit Sunstone magazine....

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)--[Re-signed]:--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to review of available sources per this discussion, and the reliable sources cited in the Wikipedia "Interpreter" article. Also, "keep" due to the level of scholarship the editors and board members bring to this journal (and who were compelled to migrate). These are highly credentialed and experienced people.

Additionally, "keep" due the fact that the controversy surrounding the closing of one journal while opening this one, along with Peterson's termination from the Maxwell Institute, has generated commentary and discussion that can be easily found on the web. If I get the chance, before this discussion closes, I will post some of the commentary and discussion that I found on the web in this thread. Also, this journal is directly related to the events surrounding this controversy and its aftermath; so any press or discussion related to this controversy seems to include the founding and purpose of this journal. It seems the controversy cannot be separated from this journal. Hence, as User: Arxiloxos mentioned above, this journal is fortunate to have generated press coverage in its early stages, which can give this article a place on Wikipedia.

Finally, I feel that I may have "ivoted" prematurely earlier in this thread. I did not take into account the nuances and distinctions that actually make this journal and its background story notable (as pointed out by DGG). I'm beginning to see there are gray areas pertaining to notability (as pointed out by DGG). As I said in another thread, it's not a perfect world. Also, in hindsight I did not see that DGG presented a very good rationale, and Hodgdon did a very good job of getting my notice so I could slow down, not judge so quickly, and enter into a discussion where I good conduct a deeper review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this topic. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to some of the commentary and discussion within the Mormon community, which I have found on the web. The first one I intend to add as a reference to this article [28]. If there is disagreement, we can discuss on the article's talk page and see if a "yea" or "nay" consensus can be developed.
Here are the other links: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and some of us may be already familiar with this one: [34].
Here are more links:[35], [36], [37], [38], and [39].
Although most all of the the links do not lead to mainstream coverage, they do show there has been coverage in the Mormon community. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 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 merge to Construction and management simulation. Courcelles 04:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon management game[edit]

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

Nominating as notability concerns have not been addressed and earlier PROD declined. The term "dungeon management game" is both WP:NEO and WP:OR. No reliable source has coined this term to mean a CMS sub-genre. The article relies on this phrase being used by a few sources, however the authors show no intention of coining a new term or a subgenre name. Such a conclusion is strong original research. "Dungeon management" is simply a description, like "Hotel manager" or "Restaurant manager" in all these cases; this does not make it a genre and no reliable sources claim it to be genre. In short, the topic has not been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + Redirect to Construction and management simulation. It's a reasonable division but still a rather new term (if anything, most seem to use Dungeon Keeper clone but that's not consistently used). --MASEM (t) 15:39, 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. Courcelles 04:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Sweet[edit]

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

No indications of notability and no reliable sources in the article Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regrettably, not notable. I really tried to find sources, but I couldn't find a thing - found lots of material about a Dr. Clifford Sweet, but this subject was a lawyer. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q research software[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement and does not appear to be a notable or well known product. Based on the history, may have been written by the developers of this product. Sigilian (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional article, sources don't meet notability requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. The listed criteria for deletion have been misread. In particular:
    • The page does not read like an advertisement. Neither the style nor content seeks to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience.
    • Yes, the page has indeed been contributed to by developers (including me). However, this is not a criteria for deletion. The relevant policy - Notability#Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity - relates to the independence of the references, not the independence of the authors of the page. The Q research software page cites independent reviews and thus this criteria for deletion is not applicable. Further, if everybody who had an interest in the content of a page were barred from contributing to the page then there would be little on Wikipedia.
    • There is no policy that content must relate to things that are "well known". Indeed, we would lose at least 99.9999999% of the content if that were the requirement and there is no need for any authorative resource which documents things that are "well known". For such a criteria to be operational would require a definition of the "who" amongst which a product is "well known", which is impractical. It is certainly true that the product is only well known amongst market researchers in Australia and New Zealand, but there are many pages with a substantially more obscure level of interest.timbo (talk) 16:08, 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, —SpacemanSpiff 03:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. No RS articles. Everything traces back to the company provided PR/website and/or blogs. Caffeyw (talk) 11:58, 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 redirect to East Riding of Yorkshire#Transport.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holderness Area Rural Transport[edit]

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

non notable company Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP, Also User:HART created the article so also per WP:COI as well as WP:NOTHOST -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Davey2010T 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Davey2010T 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Davey2010T 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Davey2010T 02:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to East Riding of Yorkshire#transport-- This is a small local bus company that probably only operates as a result of public subsidy, and operates like that, because commercial operators cannot make a profit from it. I have added a sentence to the transport section of the East Riding page, with an external link to the organisation's webpage, but that link is rather useless in that the page as yet has no content. It appears to be newly registered. The organistaion has thus gone about things the wrong way round, by creating a WP page and only then beginning work on theri own website. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Redirect per Peterkingiron. aycliffe talk 07:11, 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 keep.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Duke[edit]

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

Lack of independent sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously a very notable subject. Whether to keep as an independent article (likely the best outcome) or to merge into the parent subject is another issue. But deletion would be inappropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept this article being merged into Dukes of Hazzard as a compromise but it doesn't have any independent sources to justify its notability as a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google News search, above, shows that this fictional character is still getting ongoing coverage. Someone needs to incorporate some of it into the article, but the threshold for inclusion is that sources exist, not that they're included in the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Jclemens is so convinced it suitable for an article why don't you include some WP:RELIABLE SOURCES if you believe its notable also WP:SOFIXIT to show its notable.Dwanyewest (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is actually yours, per WP:BEFORE. And no, AfD'ing something and saying "you fix it!" is not how collaborative, volunteer projects are supposed to work. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 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 merge to Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series). Courcelles 04:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk (birdman)[edit]

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

Lack of independent sources to justify notability and should be deleted alongside Dr. Theopolis and Twiki Dwanyewest (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I can't claim enough knowledge of deletion standards regarding television shows to put in a strong vote, the inclusion of fringe characters from every television show does not seem encyclopedic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issue is really whether to keep as an independent article or merge to a parent subject. Deletion is not an appropriate outcome for a significant character in such a popular and enduring TV series. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept this article being merged into Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series) as a compromise but it doesn't have any independent sources to justify its notability as a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just merge it already and we really don't need to be at AfD for this unless someone has undone your merge. Be WP:BOLD and do the right thing, and someone else will revert if they disagree, and then we can come here and discuss it. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Blood on the Dance Floor (duo).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dahvie Vanity[edit]

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

While his band is notable, I don't think that Vanity has received enough coverage himself to merit an article. Plus this is a BLP minefield. I suggest this be deleted and then redirected to his band's article (and the redirect should probably be protected). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I agree. Delete it and leave a redirect. No properly sourced content to merge. --Michig (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that David (Dahvie) is notable enough to have article. He's article is the same as any other band member within any labaled band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tap03856 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 August 2013‎ The words "* Keep" added by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) on 20:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC), clearly reflecting Tap03856's intent.[reply]
  • Delete The band article is enough; this one guy isn't notable enough for his own article. Ensignricky (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure The fact that this is a BLP minefield also applies to relevant parts of the suggested target of the redirect. I've seen nothing so far that indicate that this person is notable independent of the band except as it relates to his alleged criminal activity and subsequent acquittal. If the article is kept, the section devoted to his life outside the band will soon become large and un-flattering. I've held off making the article more complete in this way pending the outcome of this discussion, but I did leave a relevant comment on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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/no consensus. Would have been a no consensus, but no one bothered to rebut the sources Oakshade or Trevj provided thus Keep/No Consensus. Secret account 03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simonds of Botesdale[edit]

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

non notable company. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.Davey2010T 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only published sources that address the subject use Wikipedia as their source. No evidence of notability.--Charles (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We did a mass cull of articles on bus routes a couple of months ago. The bus routes section of this article therefore needs to be removed. That will leave one paragraph, which says that the company exists and where it operates. That would be a useless stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:SALAT (particularly for what the "SA" part of the acronym refers to) and WP:NNC. There's certainly no consensus on removing all information on bus routes from Wikipedia; it depends entirely on whether the article topic is notable and whether the information would be undue within the article. The stand-alone lists of predominantly non-notable bus routes by county or district weren't suitable for inclusion separately and couldn't be merged anywhere, and the articles about bus routes were (or at least should have been) judged on individual merit (and not all have been deleted). Peter James (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only is this a transport company that provides scheduled mass-transit, in multiple areas no less, it easily passes WP:GNG with in-depth secondary coverage. [40][41][42]--Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nom. 31.50.248.157 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is for the article to be deleted, and as you have provided no reason your comment is likely to be ignored when the decision is made. This isn't a vote - see WP:VOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. Peter James (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Peterkingiron. Keep per Oakshade. Aycliffe Talk Previously Tommietomato. 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EDP24 & ipswichtransportsociety aren't widely known, The only significant coverage is [43],
Per article - you take away route lists and you have the intro Which isn't ideal, Then in a few months/years we'll be here again! . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that can scrape together a mention or three in the local media is treated as notable. On that basis every primary school would be notable but per consensus they rarely are.--Charles (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EDP is the Eastern Daily Press, which has higher circulation figures than the Norwich Evening News. Peter James (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Thanks Peter!. On that note I'll strike EDP. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade. I found a few additional refs myself.[44][45][46][47][48][49] A company providing public-facing services such as this is unlikely to still be trading after 25 years without having been noted by writers of the sources we rely upon. -- Trevj (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.... Well Link 10's unrelated, Seems some only give a slight mention of SOB. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:42, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyung Ahn Do Won[edit]

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

Non-notable - looks like one location/one group - very local Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is more about Don Baird, who apparently named this style, then about the style itself. A few schools does not a notable style make. There is a lack of independent coverage of this style and it certainly doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search didn't find anything to show this style meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:44, 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 (nomination withdrawn). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Krist[edit]

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

This musician is not notable. I could not find any reliable sources that covered her significantly. She does not pass the GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. TCN7JM 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Findings include an entry in a contemporary Christian music encyclopedia [50][51] and coverage in Billboard [52][53] among other sources: [54][55][56][57][58]. Some of these sources are better than others but on the whole I think there's enough to meet WP:GNG.  Gong show 22:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Gongshow's sources and coverage noted above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:19, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable. She is covered in sub-genre media and has a full-page entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music covering her work from 1993 through 2001. I will take some time to update. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you do that. Thanks for finding sources that I couldn't find. I am withdrawing the nomination. TCN7JM 22:03, 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 Square One Television. Courcelles 04:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Niblick of the Math Brigade[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not independently notable of Square One Television. AldezD (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:22, 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!* 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Scottish Premiership (association football)#Scottish Premiership clubs.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Premiership clubs[edit]

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

The Scottish Premiership is a brand new league, so this article simply lists the teams playing in it this season (twice!). Even next season there will only be one additional team to add, I think that it will be many years before this article would be justified. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet -- This is a somewhat peculiar article, because of its table. If it were a list, rather than having a table, there would be no objection to ist existence. It seems harmless to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, far too early for this kind of article/table/list. GiantSnowman 09:35, 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!* 00:41, 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 merge to Ishrat Jahan case. Courcelles 04:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.P. Pandey[edit]

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

Person not notable outside the context of Death of Ishrat Jahan and the article also don't show any other notability. Previous PROD contested with "better to discuss in AfD" reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whats to merge? The article has no relevant content that's not already present in the target article. Do you mean redirect instead of merge? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is likely what will happen if a merge is the result of this discussion.Pectoretalk 01:24, 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!* 00:40, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RBI Panaji[edit]

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

An entirely non notable sub office of the Reserve Bank of India created in good faith by a new user. There is a merge flag present to suggest that any retrievable information be merged into the parent article. However it looks as if there is no useful information in this article, so I am suggesting formal deletion. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. RBI has far too many regional offices which neither deserve mention on the RBI article page nor to they deserve a stand alone page. It is as good as having stand alone pages for the various branches of any bank for that matter.--PremKudvaTalk 11:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Was able to find various secondary sources. SmackoVector (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major financial institution for a state, not a retail bank. It is comparable with the branches of the US Federal Reserve and we have a page for each of those - see List of Federal Reserve branches and category:Federal Reserve Branches. To delete Indian institutions while maintaining US equivalents would be systemic bias. The article was nominated for deletion immediately after creation and so no time has been allowed for improvement per our editing policy. There are plenty of sources out there such as History of the Reserve Bank of India; The Reserve Bank of India; The Cambridge Economic History of India. The worst case is merger up to the main article about the parent institution so, per WP:ATD, there's no reason to delete. Warden (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Actually even those Federal Reserve branch articles are not notable. The information in it or in the RBI article don't make them useful or encyclopaedic.--PremKudvaTalk 05:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Warden. SL7968 10:32, 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. Discussion about merger can take place at talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 167[edit]

Gliese 167 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletionists will all die, but Gliese 167 will still be there. Seriously, it's useful information, I needed to look this up today. Bryce (talk) 13:54, 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!* 00:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read the wp:nastro page and it said if it is found in catalogues it is worth including. The sources seem to suggest it is included and of some interest. Admittedly, I may be misinterpreting the guideline, but a star seems worth keeping. Do we know when and who discovered it? Is it observable with the naked eye? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bryce. It's only 43 ly away, which makes it quite close , as these things go. Warden (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into appropriate list. The users above are misinterpreting WP:NASTRO. If an object is in a catalog of interest to amateur astronomers then it likely passes NASTRO. Catalogs of interest to professionals don't count in this regard. I downloaded the two papers cited in this article, and Gliese 167 was not singled out for any special coverage or investigation. It was studied along with 225 other stars in the first paper, and with 152 other stars in the second paper. No singular coverage was given, so no evidence of notability is presented here. Waving your arms and saying it is useful isn't an argument. WP:NASTRO is clear that notability isn't inherited, so distance is irrelevant, and the consensus from WikiProject Astronomical Objects is that a distance cutoff for notability isn't necessary. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:15, 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. If anyone wants content to merge, contact me.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 52[edit]

Gliese 52 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:59, 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!* 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is part of a constellation that suggests to me that it is observable and meets the NASTRO guideline. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the star to the List of stars in Cassiopeia also a reasonable outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, huge nitpick here: literally every star is part of a constellation, so that has nothing at all to do with notability. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:55, 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 redirect to University_of_Hong_Kong#Residential_halls. Merger can take place from history.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hysan Hall[edit]

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

Advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:00, 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!* 00:30, 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 no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhirami Suresh[edit]

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

This article now has sufficient referencing to pass BLPPROD, but I believe the person lacks the inherent notability required for an article here. Once they have it then they can have an article with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:15, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator. Have you conducted a search for reliable sources in the Malayam language? If so, what were the results? If not, why not? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 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!* 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Telegraph source says she stars in a serial. Would like to see some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:37, 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. No consensus for deletion. Merger discussion can take place at talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 69[edit]

Gliese 69 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:36, 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!* 00:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to a list article dealing with similar subjects. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to appropriate list article, or delete. No significant coverage, per WP:GNG, is presented or available. Doesn't pass WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:59, 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 withdrawn by nominator. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 195034[edit]

HD 195034 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - it has been in several studies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Empty Glass (song).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Glass (song)[edit]

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

This article does not fulfill criteria given in wp:NSONG. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no evidence of notability sufficient for articledom; one source that is Wikipedia. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:27, 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!* 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NSONG, can't redirect because the main article is the parent album, which this article duplicates content from. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Empty Glass. The album is notable, but I can't see any significance of this song for meriting a separate article. 和DITOREtails 19:24, 31 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. Michig (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalus[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable; the only relevant result on Google News was this piece http://www.business2community.com/health-wellness/nutritional-supplement-giant-sells-to-nutrivo-0587060 on a "citizen journalist" site (editorial policy). Please note that the attribution to "CNN" is actually CNN's Ireport, another "citizen journalist" site. —rybec 00:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a more detailed analysis of Airomo (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airomo) and noticed several of the same authors who wrote about it also wrote about Rivalus. —rybec 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 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!* 00:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't even find enough to verify the more basic assertions in the article. What sport was this company's founder and CEO an athlete in? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. I am One of Many (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence of notability here; article relies exclusively on primary, user-generated and invalid sources (I even see Frank in citation #9, for gawd's sake — for those unfamiliar with it, it's a Private Eye-style gossip rag which falls in the NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NO WAY NO HOW class of sources). If there's ever a good article, relying on good sources, that can be written about this company, then I would have no objection to recreation at that time — but this version is an unconditional delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Out War (EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable debut EP from a notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:20, 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!* 00:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS ~ no evidence of notability of the material to support inclusion; WP:SONG ~ no evidence of notability of any of the tracks included; WP:COMPOSER ~ no evidence of notability of compositions to genre; Of note, the link to "guitarist" Benjamin Read appears to be misleading, as it states that; "During World War II, he served as a sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, seeing service in China and Guam" & insinuates that he also served as; "United States Under Secretary of State for Management from 1978 to 1981" - however, the statement; "Read died of complications from liver disease at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. on March 18, 1993" might actually be believable considering the "hardcore" moniker, but that surely doesn't make this unique or notable in the music industry... Barada wha? 23:57, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 142093[edit]

HD 142093 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: a borderline case as a solar analog with appearances in a pair of studies. It's not really enough to pass WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. No significant coverage is presented or available. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:48, 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 merge. !voters all state the the topic appears to not meet WP:NASTRO and/or WP:GNG. The merge !voters indicate that a merge should occur. Articles that don't meet Wikipedia guidelines for a standalone article can sometimes be merged into other articles, and this notion is supported in the discussion. Also, the Weak Delete !vote states this as a "borderline case." Since the potential for a merge clearly exists here, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 138573[edit]

HD 138573 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: a borderline case as a solar analog with appearances in a pair of studies. It's not really enough to pass WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I cannot see that there are enough substantial writings on the topic. There seems to be 1, but really we need 2 for notability proof. So this means there is not enough for NASTRO, but I would like to see the facts preserved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an appropriate list article to preserve the information. An individual stub article isn't warranted by WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 133600[edit]

HD 133600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's a close solar twin and so has appeared in a number of papers under the designation "HIP 73815". Praemonitus (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just barely. The significant coverage of this star is marginally enough to pass WP:NASTRO criteria #2. I think, however, this information is more useful in a "list" article for so-called solar twins. Stubby individual articles just make it more difficult for interested readers to access such information. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as hoax article. ... discospinster talk 01:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Las Panthers[edit]

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

The move doesn't come out for four years, I am unable to find any reliable sources for this movie anywhere on IMDB or anywhere else for that matter. Whispering 00:23, 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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion. Merger can be discussed on talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 1062[edit]

AfDs for this article:
GJ 1062 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doens't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It belongs to the Ross catalogue, which I think passes WP:NASTRO criteria #2. Also it is discussed (albeit briefly) in a lot of academic sources -e.g. an paper by Kuiper here [59], another paper [60], it is studied (with a few other selected stars) here and here. In general, while each source is a bit weak, the overall coverage, as can be gauged by Gscholar for example, seems good enough to provide reliable, verifiable information for a standalone target. --cyclopiaspeak! 20:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarification, the star catalogs that pass NASTRO #2 are only Bayer and Flamsteed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it written there? It doesn't look like that. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Ross catalogue is an old proper-motion study, which was mainly of interest to professional astronomers. I don't think it serves to satisfy that criteria, and it certainly doesn't meet the spirit of the guideline as it stands any more than the Luyten catalogues. Praemonitus (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks to me as an historical catalogue. I am not an astronomer, not professional nor amateur, yet I've heard of the Ross catalogue (not the Luyten instead). Anyway, it is a star included in many studies, as indicated above. I still feel the weight of the academic evidence, while not overwhelming, should still lean us to keep. I see no clear benefit to our readers and/or the encyclopedia in removing this article. --cyclopiaspeak! 07:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            Possibly the group that maintains WP:NASTRO will need to revisit the wording. For example, the Henry Draper Catalogue contains over 300,000 stars and the identifiers are certainly widely used. Is it of high historical interest? Possibly, but I certainly wouldn't consider it a useful indicator of a star's likelihood of satisfying WP:GNG. Nor would I want to use the Ross catalogue for that purpose. That's really the point here: can the catalogue serve as a useful indicator of Wikipedia notability?
            Whether that's useful to readers or not is another question. Are a large number of poorly maintained articles more useful than a smaller number of high quality articles? I suggest taking up that debate somewhere else: we're not here to change the guidelines. Praemonitus (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Guidelines are that: guidelines. They should not be applied robotically, nor are they compelling policies: they should be considered a generic advice to improve the encyclopedia. Every guideline has this text on top: it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. - In this case I would say that this kind of cleanup has little advantage for our readers, even if it is formally in line with the guidelines. There is academic information about the star, there are studies that can be structured and condensed forming a small but meaningful article. This makes a merge target improbable. I see no benefit to our readers here in deletion of this article - if you think there is any, I'll be happy to listen. --cyclopiaspeak! 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • My common sense tells me this is an ordinary red dwarf with no particular distinguishing characters that would otherwise have made it worthy of more extensive study. Thanks for the clarification of your perspective. Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate "List of..." article, or delete. The cited sources do not provide singular or any substantial coverage of this individual object. It wouldn't pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Astrocog. It appears in a few sources, but there's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 03:04, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firestorm (EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable EP by notable band Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 04:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails both WP:NALBUM and the GNG. The only sources I can find saying anything about this aren't about the album itself, but its 20th anniversary tour. I wouldn't object to a merge to Earth Crisis, but none of the information in the lead seems verifiable. TCN7JM 04:18, 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!* 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS ~ no evidence of notability of the material to support inclusion; WP:SONG ~ no evidence of notability of any of the tracks included; WP:COMPOSER ~ no evidence of notability of compositions to genre; Of note, the link to "guitarist" Benjamin Read appears to be misleading, as it states that; "During World War II, he served as a sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, seeing service in China and Guam" & insinuates that he also served as; "United States Under Secretary of State for Management from 1978 to 1981" - however, the statement; "Read died of complications from liver disease at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. on March 18, 1993" might actually be believable considering the "hardcore" moniker, but that surely doesn't make this unique or notable in the music industry... Barada wha? 23:12, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Den'Z[edit]

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

Non-notable company, it seems. Can't find RS covering it (online at least). Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Lack of easy-to-find sources isn't a big surprise as any existing sources would likely be in Japanese and published about 20 years ago when the company was most active. That said, they didn't last long and never released anything especially notable and probably don't pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:34, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In light of the period of activity being then, the firm is not notable and appears that it would not pass the notability test. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:14, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvaloy Majumdar[edit]

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

This biographical article is both out of date and obviously self-promotional. A web search shows that the principal justification of this person's significance - being a visiting foreign policy scholar at the Liu Centre - is out of date - he left this position in early 2012. The next item is a reference to Cloud to Street, a project that has been inactive for several years. The claim that he "led major American democracy initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan" is not supported by the link (to the homepage of an NGO; likewise the claim that he served as a leading figure in the Manning Centre is unsupported, with the link again only taking the user to the home page of the Centre. All in all nothing justifies retaining this article, as Majumdar is clearly not a significant figure. Joshmeister-5-0 (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:41, 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!* 00:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the subject is not notable, or the article does not confirm this. Further, the article is sheer puffery. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sources do not confirm already tenuous claims to noteworthiness. MaestroEuro2007 (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Valero i Simó[edit]

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

I don't see any accomplishment that merits an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article appears to be a machine-translation of a Catalan Wikipedia page. While I'm not inclined to question the reliability of the given source, WP:GNG says that "multiple sources are generally expected". There's no indication that Valero i Simó has received significant coverage anywhere else. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as above, the page is not notable and no sources indicate adequate notability. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Article was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth because G3: Blatant Hoax. None of the references listed mention this purported group. (Non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Project Regulating Department & Authority[edit]

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

At first sight this curiously-named organization seems to be yet another worthy international-federation group that thinks Wikipedia is the place to tell the world about itself. The article was written by SPA user IPRDA (talk · contribs), who also removed speedy and COI tags.

On investigation, it seems to be a hoax:

  • The article presents IPRDA as a non-profit international federation of project management associations. It is largely copied from International Project Management Association.
  • From its website it seems to be just a marketing/consultancy company: "IPRDA offer creative, high standard IT projects ideally cater to your business objectives... We can plan, purchase, optimize and geo-target your media... " etc.
  • The management team (foot of this page) is copied from Inspiron Technologies.
  • IPRDA's "About us" section here is copied from the "About us" section of Digit9.0, without even bothering to change the name.
  • The article says it is UK-registered and was founded in 2006, and the website gives postal addresses in Italy, Australia, UK and US; but the website is based in India and WHOIS shows that it was only created on 13 Aug 2013 - four days ago.

If the article were to be kept, all this would have to be investigated, but there is no need because, whatever IPRDA is or is not, there is absolutely no evidence that it is notable enough to have an article. The "findsources" links above find only its website and Wikipedia, and the article references are either its own website or do not mention it. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter, (tell me stuff) @ 17:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:55, 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!* 00:16, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Fork Brewery[edit]

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

Per WP:Breweries. No significant coverage in reliable sources. All print coverage is in travel guides or articles. Ibadibam (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Loads of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate. I only see local coverage: a couple of restaurant reviews and one blurb about their solar panels. Not exactly WP:ORGDEPTH. "Local newspaper reviews do not serve to convey notability to restaurants." (WP:REST) Ibadibam (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times is a major newspaper and their coverage is certainly more than a mere mention. As you've noted, the business's use of solar panels has been reported on (fairly widely actually). So has the business's beer offerings and brewing activities. Its being a wedding chapel is also reported on in the media and the business's decor and collection of beer memorabilia is also noted in some depth in numerous sources. It's notable because many media sources have reported on it in varying degrees of depth. The coverage is plentiful and in media large and small. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All this stuff would make great supporting sources for secondary information in the article. What we don't have is a single source that says that the place is significant. We've got local restaurant reviews, a local one-paragraph blurb about the solar panels (which was picked up by a paper in another county as well). I see one example of regional coverage, which you were kind enough to link to: the Seattle Times gives a few paragraphs on the brewery in a travel column. It doesn't say that the brewery is famous, influential, or in any other way noteworthy, just that they had a nice time there. We need a source that establishes the brewery's notability, not merely its existence. Ibadibam (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times article, one of the many articles covering various aspects of this business (in addition to the coverage in books) calls it a "marvel". It also notes that it contains a beer shrine. What more do you want? I have never read an article in any paper that says "XYZ is a significant and noteworthy business that meets Wikipedia standards for notability.." It's covered substantially in many reliable and independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You keep using this word "many" when you talk about the sources, but as I've pointed out there's only a handful, and the Seattle Times column is the only thing that half resembles significant coverage. I feel like you're trying to exclude a crucial clause of GNG: Coverage isn't a guarantee of notability, just an indication that notability is likely. Look at Diamond Knot Brewing Company, for example. The same newspaper says that that brewery is "widely regarded as producing some of the best, most innovative beers in the region". That's notability, per the guideline. If I'm not explaining this well enough, WP:WINERY is relevant (albeit unadopted) and gives a little more depth. The bottom line is that we can't indiscriminately include every business that appears in print. There's just not enough information in the world for a full article on this (see the first point of WP:WHYN). Ibadibam (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are two monthly regional brewing trade publications in the Pacific Northwest, in existence for many years, and it is extremely unlikely that any brewery in Washington or Oregon is going to be a GNG fail if those are sifted carefully. Carrite (talk)
    • Remember that coverage in sources establishes a presumption, and not a guarantee, of notability. The subject must have some impact. WP:Breweries indicates "notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, economies, or history" as notability criteria. Ibadibam (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with the coverage noted by Candelabracadabra (in publications such as the Bellingham Herald and the Seattle Times), this book devotes several pages to the brewery. I'd add it as a reference but my copy hasn't arrived in the mail yet; maybe in a week or two. Chubbles (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is analogous to WP:REST: "Inclusion of a restaurant in a restaurant guide generally does not confer notability." Ibadibam (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book cited is not a restaurant guide, it's a book about craft beer and the fact that it covers this business on multiple pages shows that it's coverage amount to much more than just a listing. It is covered as a notable and signifant establishment. Hence it merits inclusion here and meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it's not a restaurant guide; it's a brewery guide. There are guidebooks for all kinds of businesses, but the principle is the same. We don't have a page for all 115 breweries covered in this book, because not all of them are notable. Does this book call out North Fork as being an exceptional or influential example from the field? If so, then there are probably other sources out there establishing the subject's notability, and they must be found if this article is to be kept. Ibadibam (talk) 23:09, 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. Consensus is clear on notability and the quality of referencing —SpacemanSpiff 04:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Uupala[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy notability criteria for entertainers WP:NACTOR IMDB shows only 5 titles for her as an actress in short films and a TV series with a budget of $20,000. She has no credits as a film producer as far as I can see. The entrepreneur bit refers to her biography on IMDB which is the rehashed version of this article (or the other way around). The "current Miss India international AP 2012" is not referenced at all. TangMH (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

my conclusion is that Preity Uupala is definately notable. I jhave taken the liberty of googling her and did some research to find an array of foriegn press on her. She certainly satisfies the notability criteria to be on wikipedia. not just for acting, but for other activities at large. You posted how is this person notable?, well this person is famous around the world on different levels- looks like she has had major fame in countries like China, russia and france. Wikipedia has entries for small time models/ actors, relatively speaking, Ms. uupala more than qualifies, with respect to all her achievements to date on a global scale. Jmcafferty (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)— Jmcafferty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep


Preity Uupala is notable around the world for various achievements. there are far less notable individuals on Wikipedia , for example actors who have had one movie only or one tv show etc. Just Google preity Uupala and you can see the hundreds of thousands of pictures and articles come up. i mean this person was is hugely notable in China and all asian countries for being awarded film awards by Jackie chan himself. She was on the front cover of several newspapers and blogs due to this. known by millions of people in that region. She also has had extensive coverage in Russia for a film event as well. If you read her bio, she has achieved much in media eye and much has been written about her. It seems that her page has largely been improved in the recent times, removing some of the irrelevant stuff. her page could be better written, but her achievements and credibility cannot be questioned. Wikipedia is about notable people, famous people who are known in public and media eye- and she has more than proved that.

Mshorr (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This BLP is an overly promotional advertisement created by part of the Nickaang sockfarm featuring lies and exageration. She was not "awarded 3 film awards, presented by Jackie Chan, at the Asia Pacific Film Festival", she just collected them for the people who actually won them as they were not able to attend. Poorly sourced deceptive promotional BLPs do not belong here. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:07, 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!* 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: puffery and other advertising. Multiple claims are unsubstantiated, and others are categorically untrue. The subject fails to pass Wikipedia's test for notability. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Definitely doesn't pass Wikipedia's test for notability as an actor:

She doesn't have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Not even one of her films is notable. She doesn't have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." She hasn't "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TangMH (talk • contribs) 20:33, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and Simon (businessmen)[edit]

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

WP:PROMO This is not an encyclopedia article, it's an advertisement for these two club-owners. It seems like a speedy delete for unambiguous advertisement would be possible, but there are a few (duplicated) references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:15, 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!* 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BLP, WP:ARTSPAM and WP:SYNTH. Most of the article is not only a PR puff piece, but is synthesized from what appears to be original research. Significant portions are unreferenced and the many references provided are simply reviews of the nightclub with these two subjects mentioned as owners or casual mentions. Other references are actually about Casper Christensen with whom these two are associated. Although it may be possible to eventually build a proper encyclopedic biography of living persons about these individuals, it would require redoing from scratch. This article should never have been moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon and Simon (businessmen) in this current form. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Infamous", "notorious", "dynamic", "notorious": magic PR words slackly used to wrap around routine enterprise. No WP:RS evidence of actual notability in their own right as per WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explore (TV channel)[edit]

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

Non notable advertising channel (contested PROD) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no claim to notability other than "India’s first travel television channel" and offers no sources. Andrew327 15:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:22, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basanta Kumar De[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - the only sources are mirrors, namechecks in official documents and a family memoir. My suspicion is that the article creator is also of that family. Sitush (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Solmon7968: I'm just wondering, before I search in more detail--specifically which claims do you think establish notability? All I'm seeing is that he was a major in the army, which is not a high enough rank for automatic notability, had a notable family (not relevant per WP:NOTINHERITED, and was the head of a company, which is not in and of itself enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was not even the head. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not carry the biographies of those who lead routine lives. This is the story of a routine life well lived, but not notably lived. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There is simply a lack of secondary reliable sources. Since the article creator have not responded to my concerns after twice attempts I am voting delete. SL7968 16:06, 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!* 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not understand the need to relist this discussion. Please note this report at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in this article indicates more than a routine life, rising to a Chief Commercial Manager role, not in itself notable in Wikipedia terms. AllyD (talk) 06:43, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_24&oldid=1142632906"