Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 December	17 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shakil Ahmad Shakil[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2009, so has no evidence of notability or even existence. Googling shows no convincing sources for this person. The details of cause of death, names of children and parents, were added without edit summary or source by an IP editor one day in April 2009: no evidence to support them. No dates, no evidence that he is dead, so might be an unsourced BLP. Has been nominated for Speedy deletion and PROD in the past, but was kept. I suggest it's now time to delete this article unless sources can be found to support it, after four years. PamD 23:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given the lack of tangible information in the text, one cannot know whether this person is alive or dead. The original article was in present tense, and looks as though its primary purpose was to present some poetry (subsequently deleted). Searches are turning up nothing about this person and WP really shouldn't be hosting unreferenced biographies. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced and I can find no sources. There isn't even a good claim to notability asserted in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's up gurgaon[edit]

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

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

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

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

This page looks advertisory and may not be within WP:NN. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Super Goku V left a message in my user talk page suspecting that "after User:Sugbali began the AfC review, User:Smridhiagg created the second article where it currently is with Sugbali making a single edit to that article as well. Considering the low number of edits that both users have made, is it bad faith to think they might be the same user?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, both user edits only focus on this. In a bit more depth, as stated about, Sugbali made edits to review the article, yet helped edit the second article that Smridhiagg made in spite of the review. After the merge, Smridhiagg has made 16 of their 18 edits to this article, with their remaining two edits for undeletion of what appears to be the same article. Sugbali has made all three edits of their edits to this article, including their "review" of the article. Delete per Not-Notable. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A 2013 start-up website, whose offered references are a mix of blogs and the same PR reprints. No evidence that this meets WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AllyD $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 11:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swativ12 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Swativ12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~keep~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swativ12 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. AllyD (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhay 1236 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Abhay 1236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - borderline promotional and notability is highly questionable. Deb (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh Punjabi (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — Saurabh Punjabi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep the article is informative — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Smridhiagg (talk— Smridhiagg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep I found the article intresting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugbali (talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Sugbali (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This opinion is hardly surprising, as Sugbali is the account which authored the article, though perhaps that has been lost in the blizzard of WP:SPA opinions. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{Page creator}} tag for you. Ivanvector (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AllyD. Notable only locally, if at all. Ivanvector (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is notable and legitimate as I have seen it in news forums and page. It has been offical media partner for various cultural festivals including MOMENTUM 2013. This event and it's sponsors were featured in gurgaon tmes and various other newspapers. Hence this article should be kept. 05:07, 20 December 2013‎ User:As9383 (sign unsigned; this was his first or only edit)
Delete - no evidence his passes our inclusion guidelines and the WP:MEAT vote-spam is just silly. It's advertising for a non-notable advertising portal. Delete this and be done with it. Stalwart111 08:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article that was borderline G11 and the subject of significant puppetry and/or canvassing from users with a seeming COI. Mkdw ^talk 03:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched Google News, and the one result was a press release from 2 December [1] announcing the site's launch. The Wikipedia article was created one week later—too soon. —rybec 03:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ShieldUI[edit]

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

After some fairly extensive searching and a contested PROD tag, I am still unconvinced that this software is sufficiently notable. Much of the text currently present in the article is referenced to the company's own website; other sources are written by the article's creator (if I'm correct in assuming that "d.johnson.dave" and "User:David.johnson.dave" are the same person). This is just a list of search results. There seems to be very little significant coverage in reliable, non-primary, non-COI sources available. Super Mario Man 22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of rushing to delete the article, how about some guidelines to improve it. The link to stackoverflow was meant to verify that many people are using this software. If that does not make it notable I do not know what will. I also included links to html5 report, which is a secondary source. All links linking to shieldiu page are meant to explain more about the company. Also, in addition to the HTML5 report page, here are some more reources. Let me know if you want me to add these to the article as well: http://www.einpresswire.com/article/176985832/shield-ui-launches-free-online-service-reportivo-for-generating-and-sharing-interactive-charts http://shieldui.blogspot.com/2013/12/shield-ui-charts-variety-range-bar-chart.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3d5myIDBoc all these from users not affiliated to shieldui in any way. Let me know if there is need to add any more content or alter the article.

Additionally. This article, and the resources cited are not much different than this for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infragistics

This article uses the same types of resources and references. Some of the links do not even work. The others are paid publications. I do not see how this establishes any more of a usability credibility. I believe I have supplied more than enough resources and forum threads to verify the notability of the entry. Deleting it would constitute a double standard, and I believe should not be allowed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David.johnson.dave (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your proposed new sources:

The Einpresswire article is a press release that seems to be reporting on a completely different product – not the ShieldUI suite. It is also written by a ShieldUI employee, which effectively makes it a primary source (in that it is not independent of the article's subject). How, therefore, is it by someone "not affiliated to ShieldUI in any way"?
Blogger is a self-publishing platform, and unreliable for the purposes of verification. YouTube is rarely acceptable as a source due to copyright issues; additionally, as with Blogger, its reliability is suspect.

The recurrent problem, which these candidate sources illustrate further, is the lack of significant coverage in secondary sources beyond the one HTML5 link (which offers a detailed product description, but not much in terms of an analysis).

Regarding your point about the Infragistics article, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Super Mario Man 21:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article, which I referred to (infra) is incomplete, with broken links and lacking. Yet you say that "other stuff exists" and leave it in place. At the same time, you want to remove this article, which is totally comparable. This is a double standard. James D. Hunt, cited in the Einpresswire is not in any way affiliated with shieldui. Shieldui contacts are listed below the name, just for informative purposes. This is how they have structured it and is beyond control. However, this person is not affiliated with the company. You wanted additional sources from people not affiliated with the company, and when I did provide them, you said that you will not accept them. I see nothing constructive in this. You even do not want to accept html5 report, by specifying "not much in terms of an analysis". Yet, your own article on secondary sources specifies "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." This makes the entry totally legal and admissible. The way I see it, you want to remove a perfectly legal article, based on assumptions and cancellations of valid sources. Article, which content is brief, to the point, with no marketing involved, just for the purpose of contributing to your site. I will not waste any more time in a biased discussion, with no clear rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.johnson.dave (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about Einpresswire – sorry, seeing the name at the foot of the article I had assumed that it was referring to the writer. Putting the matter of authorship to one side, however, there is still the problem of the lack of detailed content that is specifically about the ShieldUI product. If the HTML5 article really is the only decent secondary source that this topic has to recommend it, then it is too dependent on primary sourcing for the purposes of demonstrating noteworthiness.

With respect, I do not think a comparison to the Infragistics article is particularly helpful to your argument. Even a basic Google search for "Infragistics" reveals (at least for me) many book and recent news sources (something that this topic is lacking). Regardless of the shortcomings of the article, any AfD influenced by concerns surrounding the notability of the Infragistics topic would most likely result in the article being kept – the referencing can be improved via normal editing. Super Mario Man 13:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think leaving this article will bring more goods than bads for the Wikipedia readers. It is being referred to in product comparison and other pages that have the sole purpose of helping the users pick a product among other products - there is no advertising, marketing, proclamations or any other promotional material in these pages. Vdg990 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Vdg990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I cannot find any RSes that have in-depth discussions of the package so that it meets notability guidelines. The problem is that I can't find those for most software packages. Perhaps we need guidelines for code. The rules are clear though: it's not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Nascimento[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Notability is not inherited from his father. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ayed[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not appear to have sufficient level of reliable source coverage to meet notability requirements at this time. James of UR (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete- This page provides very valuable information. This Article has sufficient level of reliable sources. ^ "Big ideas from the intersection of Security". amphionforum.com. "Secure Access Technologies tackles workplace mobile". bizjournals.com. "The 10 Coolest Security Startups Of 2013". crn.com. "Ben Ayed". linkedin.com. "Mourad Ben Ayed, Menlo Park US". faqs.org. "Patents by Inventor Mourad Ben Ayed". patents.justia.com. "Mobile Security Management". secureaccesstechnologies.com nearly I will also add some Reliable sources. It is within the scope of wikipedia's WikiProject Biography. It will be more improve earlier as people visit this page. Mathur99 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)— Mathur99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I pulled the text above that was placed incorrectly inside the AfD template, but should be considered in the discussion. If this breaks a rule, feel free to slap me. Ivanvector (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability found. Commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO for having almost no mentions in independent secondary sources. Of the links provided here, I would consider only the crn.com link to be of decent quality, and that is not enough depth. I found nothing better online. Ivanvector (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Humble Request to all of you. I know Articles rquire significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. yes This Article has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have recently added two sources both they are reliable and independent of the subject

1- First Reliable source is a printed magazine named THE BUSINESS JOURNALS. This is a very popular printed business magazine across the world providing Business news. it has a written Article and news with photo about Mr. Ben AYED with title "Secure Access Technologies tackles workplace mobile" on date 2013/06/07. you may find this at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2013/06/07/secure-access-technologies-tackles.html. I think this is a very strong reliable source and independent of the subject.

2-Second Reliable source is CRN Magazine. this is a monthly and popular printed Magazine distributed across the world. it has written an Article and news with photo about Mr. Ben Ayed with titled "The 10 Coolest Security Startups Of 2013" on date 19-07-2013 and on Friday. You may find this at http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/security/240158269/the-10-coolest-security-startups-of-2013-so-far.htm?pgno=9 I think this is another a very strong Reliable source and independent of the Subject.

Comment - this amounts to trivial coverage of the subject. reddogsix (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so we all come to know that this article is neutral and have very strong and reliable sources. This Article is within the scope of Wikipedia's company project. It is informative and educative in nature. I could provide many other references and sources as I am purely a Wikipedian. Thanks to all.106.213.94.200 (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — 106.213.94.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - No, we all do not agree the article has strong sources. They are trivial at best.reddogsix (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are trivial in nature. Fails to demonstrate compliance with WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article cites zero reliable sources; rather, every last source here is unreliable, primary and/or trivial. And furthermore, articles that need a sockpuppet swarm to come defend them automatically get side-eye from me. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The blurb from Silicon Valley Business Journal is the closest thing to a reliable source, and even that would apply more to the related article on Secure Access Technologies. Quantumobserver (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources and canvassing/meat puppetry is very concerning in this AFD. Mkdw ^talk 03:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Access Technologies[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not appear to have sufficient level of reliable source coverage to meet notability requirements at this time. James of UR (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Ayed AfD. [User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Don't Delete. This page provides very valuable information. This Article has sufficient level of reliable sources.^ Amphion Forum |https://amphionforum.com Jump up ^ "SC MAGAZINE AWARDS 2014 FINALIST round one". scmagazine.com. Jump up ^ "SAT". mobilityforum.net. Jump up ^ "More Details for Secure Access Technologies". manta.com. Jump up ^ "secure access technologies announces with mobileIron Appconnect". secureaccesstechnologies.com. Jump up ^ "Secure Access Technologies Announces Integration with MobileIron AppConnect". reuters.com. surely i will also add some Reliable sources. It is within the scope of wikipedia's WikiProject Biography. It will be more improve earlier as people visit this page. Mathur99 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)— Mathur99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't deleted because, It is not a little bit commercial spam. There is nothing promotional on this page. This Article doesn’t have information about Products, doesn’t have information about profits and doesn’t have information about Revenue. This page is created only for information purpose with neutral point of viewand also has many good sources. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. . This Page is only for information purpose. I am sure you will ever not found any promotional content in this Article, If you find any content controversial please edit that content.Todineshmathur (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)— Todineshmathur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial or enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sole claim to notability based on the links given is being nominated for an SC Magazine 2014 award, which it appears hasn't been awarded yet, and we don't predict the future. I would accept winning the award as evidence of notability but not enough on its own to keep, and besides they have not won. Reuters link seems like a press release (compare to the link to the company's own website) and the others are selfpubs and directories that aren't useful here. Ivanvector (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:42. reddogsix (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Delete This Article - Humble Request to all of you. I know Articles rquire significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. yes This Article has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have recently added two sources both they are reliable and independent of the subject

1- first reliable source is a printed magazine named THE BUSINESS JOURNALS. This is a very popular printed business magazine across the world providing Business news. it has a written Article and news about Secure Access Technologies with title "Secure Access Technologies tackles workplace mobile" on date 2013/06/07. you may find this at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2013/06/07/secure-access-technologies-tackles.html. I think this is a very strong reliable source and independent of the subject.

2-second Reliable source is CRN Magazine. this is a monthly and popular printed Magazine distributed across the world. it has written an Article and news about Secure Access Technologies with titled "The 10 Coolest Security Startups Of 2013" on date 19-07-2013 and on Friday. You may find this at http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/security/240158269/the-10-coolest-security-startups-of-2013-so-far.htm?pgno=9 I think this is another a very strong Reliable source and independent of the Subject.

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial or enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete we all come to know that this article is neutral in nature and have very strong and reliable sources. This Article is within the scope of Wikipedia's company project. It is informative and educative in nature. I could provide many other references and sources as I am a purely wikipedian. surely I will provide some great sources and references. Thanks to all.106.213.94.200 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — 106.213.94.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial or enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination has merits! - This company has technology that is of great importance to the security community. Article references are with reputable CRN magazine, Silicon Valley Business Journal and SC Magazine. For ounce, I was able to learn about a new company with a great technology, and believe that this is of interest to the community as a whole. [[USER:50.150.122.146 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:50.150.122.146 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)#top|talk]]) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — 50.150.122.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CRN, SC Magazine and Silicon Valley Business Journal are very reputable journals and magazines and the articles were written specifically about Secure Access Technologies. It is INGENIOUS to call the references trivial! Dr. Taher ElGamal, the inventor of SSL is a backer of this company. The company presents revolutionary PROXIMITY security technology and 10 patents issued. This mention of Secure Access Technologies is of interest to all the security and crypto community. [USER:50.150.122.146 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)]— 50.150.122.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Ingenious? reddogsix (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The overuse of the words "Trivial" against articles by reputable magazines CRN, SC Magazine and Silicon Valley Business Journal, and against Dr ElGamal is an ingenious way to discredit oneself [USER:50.150.122.146 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - I would suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:UNCIVIL before contributing further to Wikipedia. Specifically where was ElGamal called trivial? reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to back up your claim that Dr. ElGamal is backing this? I did not see that in the articles mentioned, and this claim could run afoul of our policies on quoting living persons if not backed up by a good source. This needs to be backed up by a very good, neutral source that not only confirms it, but discusses why his endorsement is important. Having 10 or any number of patents issued does not demonstrate notability unless there is an independent source that asserts that the patents are important, and indeed it is to be expected that any start-up security company would have invested in a large number of patents. The patents themselves are not useful because they would have been written by the company, and therefore not verifiable sources.

Regarding the sources you've provided specifically:

CRN gives the company only a trivial mention in a listing of 9 other companies. It briefly explains what the company's product is but gives no indication of its importance. I see here that Dr. Elgamal is on the company's Board of Advisors, but that is not inherently an endorsement.
Silicon Valley Business Journal published this article in a section they call The Pitch, and indeed it reads like a press release or snippet from a prospectus published by the company. It also appears that SVBJ regularly publishes press releases submitted to them. The independence of this citation is dubious. It could be useful as a citation with info about a company, but only if it was supplementing another non-primary source independent of the company. Again it mentions Dr. Elgamal but not as an endorsement.
SC Magazine again only gives a trivial mention in a listing of many companies that might win its award in the future. Even if SAS had won the award, the award doesn't appear to be a major award, but it might be notable if the magazine had done a write-up on the company when it won. Of course none of this has happened yet, and Wikipedia does not predict the future.

These sources are not good enough to demonstrate the company's notability because they are too short, or they appear to be written by the company, or both. Please have a look at Wikipedia's guide to reliable sources, and if you know of any, please let us know. I did not find any better sources online.

Also, it looks like you are copy-pasting code to make up your signature. It is much easier to sign your post by typing ~~~~ and the server will replace that with your signature, like this: Ivanvector (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect, the commenter (Ivanvector) seems to diminish the value of the United State Patents and Trade Mark Office patents as investments.
USPTO Note that patents are pieces of law that cannot be purchased by anyone. They are edited by the USPTO and are merited on the sole basis of innovation, novelty and functionality!
SVBJ The commenter also appears to diminish the reporting of one of the most reputable business journals – The PITCH section - as a mere pay for hire. Note that the PITCH team selects companies on the basis of Merit, and never accepts suggestions or payment for its reporting.
CRN magazine reporting is not a trivial mention!!! CRN has selected 10 Coolest Security Startups for 2013, has investigated those companies, and has written an article about each of those companies, including an article about Secure Access Technologies. Again, CRN has described the company’s product, and has indicated the importance of Secure Access Technologies as one of TOP 10 coolest security startup of 2013.
SC MAGAZINE has an independent vetting process for Best Multi-Factor Authentication technologies. Secure Access Technologies has passed several rounds and has been announced as finalist for last round.
Dr ElGamal is on the company’s Board of Advisors, and there cannot be a stronger endorsement to a company than to be officially associated with the company and to be on its board. Dr ElGamal has a signed contract with SAT.
Finally the commenter has omitted the CTIA Mobits Award for Best Application Security Product.

Ivanvector considers any work by the USPTO, CRN, SVBJ, SC Magazine as too short or written by the company or both... I would suggest that Ivanvector researches these institutions and tries to understand their work and processes. These are some of the most reputable institutions in the US. In the case of the USPTO, it is one of the major pillars of the US Economy. NONE of these institutions publishes work or endorses work for a mere fee. Also, for your information, SAT did not pay a penny for these endorsements. SAT revolutionary technology with 10 patents GRANTED/ISSUED speaks for itself. As for Dr ElGamal, a BOARD OF ADVISOR seat in the company is the HIGHEST form of endorsement a company can have.[User 50.150.122.146 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)]— 50.150.122.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 50.150.122.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll admit I'm not all that familiar with these publications specifically, but I am experienced in reviewing corporate press materials. I'd welcome a critique from an experienced editor familiar with these topics. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - primary sources and trivial mentions are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, it is as simple as that. If proponents had spent as much time securing independent coverage as they have making spurious arguments here, this might be notable by now. Just silly. Stalwart111 08:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. The USPTO can be used to verify facts, but having a patent, or 10 patents, or any number of patents does not establish notability. Nor do minor mentions in lists of startups and such. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart: What arguments did u find spurrious??? What do you mean by "securing independent coverage"???? Are you saying that we need to go out and buy some coverage??? Secure Access Technologies is in the business of innovation in mobile security and has received coverage in the most reputable security magazines without EVER paying for PR. Our company in the US FEDERAL LAW, and there are 10 LEGISLATIVE PIECES of law, they are called Patents that affect mobile security business going forward.

Whpq: Please see my mention about US Patents. With all due respect, there appears to be serious misunderstanding of patents. US patents are not merely used to verify facts. They a LEGISLATIVE pieces of federal law that dictate what people can manufacture, import or sell. Specifically, and this is from our patents: "United States Patent Grants to the person(s) having title to this patent the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United Sates of America or importing the invention into the United States of America...."

I suggest you revisit your arguments about the USPTO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.122.146 (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — 50.150.122.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If the technology is truly notable, it shouldn't be hard to secure independent coverage from interested journalists and authors (reliable sources) without paying for it. Patents (per long standing consensus) are primary sources, not independent secondary sources, as they require interpretation (WP:OR) to extract meaning. USPTO arguments are tried, tested and have been fairly comprehensively rejected. Coverage of those patents would be a different story. Stalwart111 07:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "our patents"? Please see WP:COI. Stalwart111 07:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart buddy, you need to do some ready, and present material facts! Please refrain from making spurious comments about CRN, SVBJ, CTIA Mobits and SC Magazine being for hire. CRN and SC are most reputable magazines in security. SVBJ is the most reputable business journal in Silicon Valley.

THESE ARE NOT PAID ARTICLES. THESE ARE INDEPENDENT COVERAGE, and by the way, SAT does not have the resources to pay for these articles. This is NOT A FUNDED company, and would not have the $ to pay for these!!!

All there is is Great Technology, independent coverage, and well deserved MERIT.

Please Read the articles, Read about the company, understand the technology, Read about the sources CRN, SVBJ, CTIA and SC, and Understand patents

These are simple things that any literate can read and understand. Also, US Patents are PLAIN ENGLIGH and all you need to do is read. Believe me, you will not need an interpreter for this!!!

The facts here are: Independent coverage by CRN, SVBJ, CTIA Mobits Award, SC Magazine Nomination as Finalist, Dr ElGamal as Board Adviser, more than 10 patents ISSUED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.241.83 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC) — 72.214.241.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V and finally WP:N. You seem to have misunderstood most of what has been suggested so far with regard to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Stalwart111 21:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be a clear case of meat-puppery or canvassing based upon the single purpose IPs and their very biased assessment of the article and their clear unfamiliarity to the process. I was tempted to delete this article under G11 after reading it. Mkdw ^talk 03:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete This page contains information about a company with an innovative technology.

Its technology has been considered unique and rewarded several patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. US Patent and Trade Office grants patents reviews designs and technology as an unbiased "third party", and has no vested interest in a company. Incidentally, the Patent Office did reject some of the Secure Access Technologies applications.

CRM Magazine article referred to was initiated by the staff of the magazine on their own. Secure Access Technologies did not request an article to be written. No information was provided to the magazine by the Secure Access Technologies ahead of time.

In summary:

Patents are issued because Patent office finds merits with them.
Patent office is a unbiased 3d party.
References are not all press releases.
CRM magazine article was initiated by themselves

.2602:306:377C:6FE0:BDA8:1999:DB32:25AE (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC) — 2602:306:377C:6FE0:BDA8:1999:DB32:25AE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Finch[edit]

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

I did due diligence with WP:BEFORE but the most I can really find about this man are quirky news references to how he got his earpiece lodged in his ear one time. Seems flash-in-the-pan to me. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, and a not particularly notable single event at that. Ivanvector (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doe snot meet notability criteria with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack And Kane Meet Dave[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable film. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable topic. There does not appear to be any coverage from reliable sources about this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is there not any coverage in reliable sources, there isn't even any significant coverage in unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF as a released film. Allow back if or when this gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to re-nominate. SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Guard[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of various toys. No independent reliable sources establish the notability of this compilation or any of its sub-compilations. No independent reliable sources discuss the concept from the out-of-universe perspective expected when writing about fiction. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability = None — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusImperator (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 December 2013

Keep appropriate list by WP:L. --Crazy runner (talk) 14:39, 2 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's very plausible that someone would type "Elite guard" into the searchbox, but if they do are they looking for a line of toys? We need to think of the solution that helps encyclopaedia users. I think that's rename this list to Elite Guard (transformers), redirect Elite Guard to Elite (disambiguation), and add a hatnote to Elite (disambiguation) pointing to Elite Guard (transformers).—S Marshall T/C 17:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I've supported the merging of several Transformers articles before, on the basis of there not being enough real world information, it seems to me that lists of fictional characters are usually comprised of mostly in-universe information. Has a Manual of Style ever been written for these kinds of articles, or do any guidelines/policies specify what the expectations are for them? Even if the lack of real world information isn't a problem here, it might be better to merge this article into a larger list of Transformers characters. I'm not familiar with the series, but many of the characters listed here do seem to be listed at List of Autobots as well, and I assume (though can't say for sure) that those characters listed here that aren't Autobots can be found in some other list of Transformers characters. Are there any experienced editors with a knowledge of the series who could explain whether the Elite Guard is notable enough to have its own separate list?

As for the references, I haven't taken the time to discern the reliability of each one, but comicbookrevolution.net (currently ref. #7) seems more or less acceptable; it started out as a blog, but has apparently evolved into a professional website over the years. Botcon.com (currently ref. #10) looks like it's probably okay as well, though I can't tell whether it would be an independent or primary source. --Jpcase (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just realized that this isn't actually classified as a list, but still, it's pretty clear that it should be. So I still stand by what I said about the possibility of this article not needing much real world information. --Jpcase (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: If this article isn't deleted (which I really don't think is necessary, since at the very least, we could merge it into some larger list of Transformers characters), then I would suggest that a few things be done for cleanup. The lead needs to be expanded so as to provide an explanation of what role the Elite Guard actually plays within the series; the "Toys" sub-section under the "Transformers: Generation 1" section should be removed, and instead information about each character's toys should be incorporated into their own respective sections; a date should be provided for when each character was first introduced to the series (If there are separate dates for when the first toy of the character was released and for when the character was first incorporated into the television series/comic book series, than both dates should be provided) and a full listing should be provided for all the different television series, comics book series, and films that each character has appeared in. Of course, more improvements should certainly be made, but I think that addressing these points would at least help the article be more accessible and relevant from an out-of-universe persepctive. --Jpcase (talk) 23:58, 9 December 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, -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynch Ambulance Service[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. No sources other than its' website. Does what every ambulance service does: BLS & CCT. – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever

No longer have the desire to fight for content. Delete whatever you want to. Epolk (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This ambulance service is so run-of-the-mill that it doesn't even provide emergency service. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage about this company in independent reliable sources. There is a government press release which covers a $3 million settlement from the company for overbilling Medicare. But press releases aren't useful for notability.-- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ludwig van Beethoven. Merge away! :) Please consider discussing merge considerations on the talk pages per WP:MERGE. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's liver[edit]

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

This is proposed for merging, yes, but simply put I don't think that it's all that notable, and I don't think that it should have either its own article or space in the main article. I daresay that the principle of "notability is not inherited" does come into play here; if this was anyone else's liver, we wouldn't bat an eye at deleting the article as is. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the single notable fact to Ludwig van Beethoven. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing why on earth this should be merged; it's utterly unencyclopedic and is basically a joke article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing notable about Coren's article, nor is there a source that supports the claim that the liver is still around. This isn't Albert Einstein's brain. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a joke article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athn (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but a move to WP:BJAODN is extremely tempting. De Guerre (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Ludwig van Beethoven or perhaps Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, but only after screening for hoax or humorous content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)s[reply]
Merge, as I suggested on the talk page. I created this article to show another editor that it is not difficult to create a well-sourced article stub meeting WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS (although others dispute the WP:N), and I deliberately overdid the "notables" etc in the text which was labouring the point, I admit. In that sense I was pushing my luck a bit and expected it to end up here, but I didn't write it as a "joke" article, more a demonstration one; I've not invented facts (though the one I marked as CN I can't verify at the moment) and it is in encyclopaedic style. I think the fact that a respected pathologist (Madden) wrote about it on Beethoven's 200th anniversary as a rather bizarre homage would tend to indicate that at least at that time it was still around for his examination... I think the J. Alc J. says where it resides, but that is subscription only (an archive of the article used to be available on the Internet without subscription). Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Navy blue. The Keep rationales do not appear to address notability concerns. I have redirected to Navy blue but if there is a better target then that is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uc davis blue[edit]

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

NB Article has now been moved to correct capitalisation at UC Davis Blue PamD 13:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a color that is used only by one university. It should be redirected to "Navy blue". Vanjagenije (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wouldn't even bother redirecting to navy blue. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add an entry to List_of_colors:_N–Z#U, where there are several other colours named for Universities. Then link that to an appropriate new section of UC Davis article as for University_of_Arizona#School_colors. PamD 13:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if anything survives it should be moved to "UC Davis Blue",with caps. Or perhaps "UC Davis blue"? PamD 13:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But note the precedent of Tufts Blue, and generally variable treatment of colour names! PamD 13:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: now that I've moved it to proper capitalisation it turns blue the last remaining redlink in the template {{Shades of blue}} (spotted while looking at the Tufts Blue article). PamD 13:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Pantone colour notability is clear. We must be consistent. --AJHingston (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @AJHingston:. I'm not familiar with colour notability, could you explain why this one is notable? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about specific notability rules on colours. But as PamD says, we do have articles on other shades of blue and she points to Tufts Blue in particular. Pantone uses the name, it has a history, and it is a reasonable look-up if only for that reason. Redirection to Navy blue (actually a merge proposal in practice) does not seem very satisfactory, if only because that article is losing focus (Persian indigo does not seem to belong there for example). Delete this one and where to stop? --AJHingston (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the argument being made other than one of Other Stuff Exists and All or Nothing. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD necessarily relies heavily on precedent. Otherwise WP coverage would be even more random and arbitrary than it is now. An argument for deleting this article seems to be an argument for getting rid of such articles as a class or formulating new notability guidelines for them. I cannot see how WP:GNG could work here. --AJHingston (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just not sure why this colour needs its own article and couldn't be part of the University of California article. Surely the notability criteria applies to every article on Wikipedia? Samwalton9 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some projects or groups of articles have different standards by precedent. For example, there are probably a 1000 or more mineral articles (some being pretty obscure minerals), of which only a few have enough proper refs showing notibility, but all of the minerals exist with clearly defined characteristics in academic/research literature. Yes, the Color Project is a bit of a mess because we often can't even agree to disagree about what it is we are even discussing. Even after extensive discussion, we never even came to agreement on the green shade to display on Green. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge leaving redirect - Color articles which actually have provable defined color coordinates are normally not deleted, but it is fine to merge the contents into an appropriate color article (e.g. Navy blue). Check the Blue template now at the bottom of the article where some school colors have separate articles (e.g. Tufts blue) while some are in list style articles (e.g. Brandeis blue). VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the arguments here based upon OSE and as such the article should be deleted. What you have here is an article with no reliable sources to verify anything that is said in the article. Surely if you want to save this article we can add something to establish notability and to verify the content. With regards to the other items that have been raised, I would say that everything must meet a minimum standard. Until an exception is carved out in policy for colors I would delete. JodyB_talk 12:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JodyB, no evidence at all this meets WP:GNG and the other stuff exists argument is moot Secret ^account 18:35, 16 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is in itself trivial. The exact info on the color could be added to University of California Davis. Do other campuses of the UC use the same color? If there was some story or controversy about the use of the color by Davis then maybe, but the one mere fact that a college uses a certain color is not worthy of an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Color project which covers this article, the info should be merged into the appropriate color list article, instead of into a school article where it should instead be referenced by a wikilink. As a member of a color list, it does not need to be GNG in and of itself per WP:CSC, etc. FWIW, the Color project does manage at random intervals to consolidate articles like these into lists, so it tends to be unhelpful if they get deleted first (for example UC Davis Gold which should have been merged into Gold (color)). VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that merge. I also think the details of the colors could be mentioned in the school article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UC Davis, and perhaps create "UC Davis Gold" as a Redirect as well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with redirecting, but WP:WPCOL would prefer these types of redirects go to the most relevant color article, in this case Navy blue. Doing other wise prevents the project from consolidating color article/stubs/redirects. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not able to locate any independent source that discusses this colour in detail. Yes, it's in Pantone, but I'd argue that mere inclusion in that colour list is not sufficient for notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The color is used not just by Davis, but by anyone writing about that university or things connected with it. There are other university colors, and this should be treated similarly. Merging it into the university seems singularly unhelpful. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal[edit]

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

I am listing this article at the request of an individual affiliated with this article. (OTRS Ticket # 2013120310008387) He/She is stating, "This is a private court case that happened many years ago and is causing me a great deal of stress." The individual is requesting that the article be deleted on the grounds of his or her concerns of privacy. Mike V • Talk 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This scandal was the subject of newspaper headlines in the UK at the time. Its notability is evidenced by the references in the article. An individual named in the article asked for it to be deleted because a Google search for their name came up with the article, and they did not want to be associated with the scandal. They wisely did not specify their name in their request, at the Wikipedia Help Desk. I guessed which of the names in the article was meant, judged it unimportant to the article, and deleted it. So, if I guessed right, the reason for deleting this article about a notable topic has been largely removed (though unfortunately Google appears not yet to have noticed the deletion, and still lists the WP article when the person's name is searched for). Of course I may have guessed wrong. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Google has caught up. A Google search no longer finds the Wikipedia article – though it does find a mirror of it. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have every sympathy for anyone involved in this shocking case but it is both inherently notable and indeed important. There may be a case for amending or removing parts of the article per WP:BLP and it would certainly be a courtesy, if not a requirement, to avoid using individual's names but there is no case for a wholesale deletion. Ben Mac Dui 19:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article on the ramifications of the case while ensuring all WP:BLP material is excised and remains so. A notable case, I even have one of the books about it on my bookshelves. AllyD (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A major event, subject of books, had a significant impact on British child protection and social work[2], and still very much not forgotten[3][4][5]. (Note it's often referred to as the Orkney child sex abuse scandal.) It's sad that someone should find the existence of this article disturbing (the article shouldn't identify any victims, and now doesn't), but it's an event of sufficient historical importance that keeping it is essential. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parañaque bus accident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, even every accident/tragedy is not encyclopaedically notable. That is a news issue. Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not every accident or tragedy is notable, but some actually are notable like this one. Just doing a quick search yields plenty of news sources covering this accident. If this article is to be deleted, you might as well delete this article as well, because that one is also a "news issue". There is definitely enough information for an article about this accident, which is why the article should stay. The article has enough sources to show that it is notable. Andise1 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least twenty deaths equals a significant accident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes we may as well dlete hte article. WP:NOTTEMPORARY clearly states (though for people) "only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile ". Number of sources doesnt meet encyclopaedic notability because there are hordes of articles on everyday incidents. All of them cant be collated on WP. IE- Just because they are syndicated doesnt make it notable.

As for the death counbt, where there is a n absoltue number of deaths that becomes notable? More than 20 people in a bombing in iraq doesnt constitute its own article?Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's purely a matter of opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We can't rush to delete new articles. The reason we can't rush in (out as, as it were in this case), is that tragedy may take days or weeks to sink in. The number of deaths is merely one factor in such cases; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. In this particular case, the number of deaths (20) and effect on a major metropolitan area's transportation network would make it likely to be notable. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep - This news received significant coverage in int'l news media the day it happened. (Actually learned about it first from CNN). But would recommend renaming the article to Manila Skyway bus accident as this tragedy happened at the border of Parañaque and Taguig as indicated in the infobox, plus the int'l media reported it as having occured in a Manila suburb.--RioHondo (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. I also agree with RioHondo proposal to move the article to Manila Skyway bus accident. Parañaque bus accident, is too broad and may refer to any bus accident that may have happened in Parañaque. However the reactions section should focus more on reactions of relevant people such as the police, the bus company involved and city officials and not on celebrities expressing condolences and criticizing bus drivers.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep per WP:SNOW. There is not even a hint of defamation here. This Keith Mann, who is explicitly the subject of the article, easily passes WP:GNG. No substantive policy has been raised to require deletion. "Keith Mann" is an extremely common name, and, in fact, I have a neighor and former constituent with the same name. There is nothing we can do about Keith S. Mann's problems, sorry. Also, I think he means cite, not site. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Mann[edit]

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

I am listing this page on behalf of Keith.s.mann (OTRS Ticket # 2013121610012062). He states, "This site is clearly an attempt at a truant to strike fame. Furthermore I site “defamation of a common name” as this is also my birth name and I will not stand to have my name go down in history as one belonging to that of a vandalous criminal. I am a professional, as are others with whom I know hold this name and it disgusts me to bear witness of this defamation." Mike V • Talk 18:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - personal offense at somebody's name is not a reason to delete a valid article. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if Keith.s.mann Finds it to a attempt at a truant to strike fame. I don't see the rationale of deleting a Valid article.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he meets the notability guidelines, and there isn't much we can do to help if the nominator has the same name. Matty.007 19:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We could suggest that Keith.s.mann change his name ;) 69.181.253.230 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - meets notability guidelines, Keith.s.mann's nomination rationale is bizarre and a long way from being policy-based; I'm surprised anyone actually acted on it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the user contacted us through OTRS asking for the page to be deleted. I advised him on our deletion policies and he wanted to list the article for deletion himself. There was some difficulty in posting the nomination, so at his request, I listed it for him. Mike V • Talk 23:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That makes rather more sense now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bizarre rationale. I reject it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply, as Keith.s.mann himself points out, he is not the subject of this article. Ivanvector (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual is notable, as references prove. It must be annoying to share your name with someone whose beliefs you utterly oppose, but there's not much that Wikipedia can do to fix that. There is a historian of France called Keith Mann who might be notable[6] (and a dead American jurist), so maybe the upset party could create Wikipedia pages on them to counter this Mann's presence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep As everyone else has said, Keith Mann is notable and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply as Keith.s.mann isn't Keith Mann. I don't see a single plausible reason to delete this page. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why are we even taking this request seriously? This gentleman clearly has no concept of the purpose of an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle (rapper)[edit]

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

Artist doesn't appear notable. No third party coverage of any value. Has no charted or heavily reviewed albums. The sole charted single mentioned in the article isn't actually his. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful Loser (Kyle album) Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, those references are just iTunes references. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged the article for having an advertising tone, but all this being said brings WP:MYSPACEBAND to my mind. It's not a textbook case, obviously, but that it was written as an advertisement is telling. Lazy Bastard Guy 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, WP:MYSPACEBAND seems relevant here. This performer is simply not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The promotional tone is offputting, but that could be fixed. I don't think it's quite in WP:MYSPACEBAND territory, but subject does seem well short of notability right now. Subject is very young--if substantial coverage develops in the future, we should have this article back. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, though, removing the promotional stuff or even rewriting it makes the article really, really short. If the article can't be of a reasonable length (i.e. beyond being a stub) without flattering its subject, then it's not time to have an article on the subject. Lazy Bastard Guy 16:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Loser (Kyle album)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have ever charted, doesn't appear to be any reviews (careful, as there are reviews for a documentary with a similar name). Artist himself isn't notable. Singles don't appear notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle (rapper) Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if main page fails to establish notability then the album page probably wouldn't fare any better. Lazy Bastard Guy 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see evidence for notability. Looking at Youtube and last.fm suggests only a small audience. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eti Mine Works. Courcelles 20:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etiproducts[edit]

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

I see no actual evidence of notability. Conceivably could be merged into the article if not included there already. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eti Mine Works, its parent company. I added a reference to the parent company's article to confirm its notability. —Neil 23:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Circle and Reservoir (MBTA stations)[edit]

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

These are two separate stations; while geographically close, they are not considered part of a single station complex. Notably, the official MBTA map shows no connection between them. All useful content has now been moved to the separate station articles (Cleveland Circle (MBTA station) and Reservoir (MBTA station)), and all internal wikilinks appropriately redirected. Article was dePRODed by User:Thryduulf, a user with significant experience with railroad-related articles, with an edit summary of: "There has been content at this title since 2006 so deletion would needlessly break many links. Some form of outline article or dab page would be better". I'm not sure that such a page would be useful; outside Wikipedia, the stations are always referred to separately. At most it should be a dab page to deal with any remaining external links from outside Wikipedia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as consensus is to replace with one-sentence dab. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. My concern is that if there is nothing at this title, then we are intentionally breaking 7 years of bookmarks and incoming links from external webpages. Users will continue to arrive here looking for content about one or both stations, and we should provide them a way of accessing the content we have at the new locations. Whether they are best served by an outline article, a dab page, a redirect to one of the stations with a hatnote to the other, or a redirect to some other place that links to both I'm not certain, but none of these options require or even benefit from deletion. Additionally, there are also attribution issues that require the edit history to be kept - see WP:CWW and WP:SPLIT#How to properly split an article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with dab. I'd best own to being responsible for this, as I created this article back in 2006. With seven years more experience of editing, I now think that was a mistake and I should have created two separate articles. So what is to be done?. To be honest it isn't exactly the most earth shatterlingly exciting topic; I suspect that there will not be many bookmarks and incoming links, so a delete would not be the end of the world. But I think on the whole a very minimalistic dab page may be safer. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with dab. Leaving this title with a dab page pointing to both stations seems harmless and drama free. Maybe include the first sentence or two from the nominators's statement. If nothing else, it will discourage a new editor from recreating the article while preserving edit history. I'd encourage the nominator to accept this option and withdraw the nomination. (see the end of the section WP:AFDHOW for the right way to do this).--agr (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what's being said here, one-sentence dab seems reasonable enough. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDHOW: "To withdraw a nomination, add a note saying "Withdrawn by nominator" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, and give a brief explanation and sign it." If you could do that, we can close this and move on, as we all seem to be in agreement.--agr (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with dab pending a proper split of the article into two their respective pages. In all fairness, the stations are no more than a two minute walk from each other, and Chestnut Hill Avenue on the B-Line is not more than five minutes away (a little more going uphill from Reservoir), so that station could be linked into this article also. Empty trams go from Reservoir onto all three lines. -Bhtpbank (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Rodriguez (swimmer)[edit]

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

I am concerned that this subject fails the notability criteria. I don't believe it evidences any notability, the subject is a swimmer who has not received any third party coverage (refs were to facebook, a page on the swimming club, and a Google search reveals only the aforementioned plus the subject's own blog site) and I don't know if a breaststroke medal at the 2013 Salvadoran Short Course National Championships would count as notable on its own. Given the club he trains at, which seems to host other people who go on to become notable atheltes, he may one day become notable, but this fails WP:CRYSTAL at this time I would argue. Also note, article was BLP-PROD'd but I removed that when a ref was supplied. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has no 3rd party sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SWIM. A non-notable swimmer. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE. - Mr X 01:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I checked at FINA to see if I can find any record of him competing at international FINA competitions and could find nothing. No evidence that he is an athlete competing at the top level of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Stratton[edit]

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

President of a political party at the Canadian provincial level, with only a single primary source for verifiability. WP:POLITICIAN allows for the public leader of a political party — i.e. the person who would actually hold the title of premier or prime minister if the party won the election — to potentially be considered notable, but even that still requires reliable sourcing. And it has never been automatically extended to people who hold leadership roles inside a party's internal org chart, either; merely being president of a political party confers notability only if the person can be properly sourced as a reasonably prominent public figure in their own right. Previously prodded, but the prod was disputed over a potential misunderstanding of the distinction between a party "leader" and a party "president". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the prod, based on a faulty memory that we've kept these in the past, until I recalled that we had redirected similar articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Party of Alberta candidates, 2004 provincial election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Green party leaders in Canada. Those deletion discussions were not on all fours, so this is really a sui generis case. My inclination is also to re-direct this one, but I'd to see what others think. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is identifying a viable redirect target. Most of the "Green Party candidates in Alberta provincial elections" don't exist at all (Alberta not being a province where any of the editors who actively believe in the value of these lists are actually located), and the article (a) states that she ran in multiple provincial elections, not just one, and (b) fails as written to actually identify which elections. And a party president isn't the same thing as a party leader, so List of Green party leaders in Canada isn't a viable or appropriate redirect target either. So while I'm not fundamentally opposed to redirection in principle, there's no easy way to figure out where such a redirect should point to in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 15:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think a president of a small provincial party qualifies as WP:POLITICIAN's "sub-national office". Certainly just running for office (and failing to get elected) doesn't. If a redirect is in order, then probably Alberta Greens#Leaders would be the best target, as it covers the time when she was deputy leader (2004-06) and party president (2006-08). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - president of the party is not leader of the party so I don't think that a redirect to a list of leaders would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A note to the new editors of this AFD that you please read WP:PLEASEDONT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:NFF, and WP:FUTURE. Mkdw ^talk 16:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fan (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 15:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per the notability guidelines for future films. If filming does begin as planned, we can recreate the article. It is too soon at the moment. I recommend mentioning the project plans at the director's and actor's articles in the meantime. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this page, if this gets deleted, than Raees should get deleted too, because both movies are announced officially. user: Desirockerz
If you are referring to Raees (film), then it looks like it should be deleted as well, to apply these same guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this page. Fan (film) should not be deleted as it has been officially announced by production house (India's largest film production company) Yashraj Films. The news was covered by leading media houses of India. The article also has proper references and has been linked from many pages like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan_filmography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitsri2014 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Boot[edit]

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

This page appears to be almost identical to the longstanding disambiguation page Golden Boot (disambiguation), except without a few of its entries. Furthermore, even if this were to be expanded into an article, I don't think there's enough scope in the topic for having a dedicated page to the football Golden Boot concept on its own. Individual articles such as World Cup Golden Boot are sufficient for this. If this is deleted, Golden Boot (disambiguation) should be moved back to Golden Boot. — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is Just a Duplicate of Golden Boot (disambiguation) and has no sources. It looks to me like it is a badly writing disambiguation page.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just a subset of the list on Golden Boot (disambiguation). Maybe the best option would be to delete this and move Golden Boot (disambiguation) to Golden Boot. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what my proposal above says. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge history with Golden Boot (disambiguation), they appear to be near-identical disambiguation pages covering the same topic. Giant Snowman 18:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with Golden Boot (disambiguation), as this was the original page before R'n'B decided it was possible to write an article about the concept of a Golden Boot. Three years later, it appears he was wrong. In the meantime, a bunch of ambiguous links have built up. Josh Parris 01:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Software in retail[edit]

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

Page created in July 2013 that reads like the start of someone's school homework. Says nothing of note and not capable of expanding into anything. Various editors have tidied up the layout, but there has ben no substantive text editing since creation. Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is just a small definition and give no information or navigation.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for obvious reasons. Seems to fall just short of speedy deletion criteria. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced/Original research.Dialectric (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like an assignment or something, I wonder why the creator put this up on WP in the first place? Clearly original research --The ChampionMan 1234 05:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be entirely WP:OR and the subject matter is so vague that it surely would overlap with several other articles. Mkdw ^talk 16:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comparison of HTML editors. Sourced information should be merged across; the rest, as per the discussion, should not. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of early HTML editors[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; there's no need for this table of features of long-forgotten and unnotable software. — Scott • talk 00:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'm not sure the list is indiscriminate, I feel that these comparison tables are almost invariably original research (WP:SYNTHESIS). Additionally, this list has a vague inclusion criteria: what does "early" mean? Pburka (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely subjective article based on original research. Borders on indiscriminate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Comparison of HTML editors, allowing sources to be located and added. Another possible home (at some point in the future) could be within a more comprehensive WP:SPINOUT article entitled History of the HTML editor or similar. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 12:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Potential COI declaration: Now looking at the article history I see that the article creator has previously collaborated with me at Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot. I'd not noticed this before I !voted above, and it's not influenced my opinion.) -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 12:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a conflict of interest. You don't have to disclose that. Most of us have interacted with each other before. There are only so many active editors on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yes, it's not an external COI but I thought it still worth noting as an internal one. If my !vote had been an uncomplicated provision of sources demonstrating notability (for example) then I wouldn't have felt the need. As it is, it seemed worth noting - and yes I did think twice before saving the comments and decided "why not?" Cheers. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 22:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. whether content works better elsewhere, i have no opinion on, but i don't see information as "indiscriminate", and the fact that it doesn't tell people what browser they should use in 2013 doesn't mean the history of prior browsers should simply be deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Comparison of HTML editors, and as per User:Trevj's !vote above, then allow sources to be located and added to verify content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from originator: I have no objection to a merge of any material in the list relating to notable software (ie that has an article). Most of it doesn't appear to be. — Scott • talk 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start sourcing, then! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, no no no. Adding references to non-notable bits of software mentioned in the list is absolutely not the route to take. Only three items in the list have articles (or a section thereof). The rest need to go. — Scott • talk 22:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article isn't technically titled as being a standalone list, it seems that it can be considered one. Therefore, per WP:LISTN, items which don't have independent notability can still be included, as the list doesn't seem to be unmanageably large. What I'm starting to do is verify some of the information (I accept that the sources I found don't seem to help much with verifying the contents of the column comparison info but it's a starting point). What do you think? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 22:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it might be clearer to have it as a separate article, but it could alternatively be combined. The one thing that should not be done is to have it deleted. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V as mostly unsourced contested content, or failing that merge to Comparison of HTML editors. No indication that this particular collation of data has been the subject of coverage by reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 10:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Internet phenomena. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rake (cryptid)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional creature. TheLongTone (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would a merge to List of Internet phenomena or Slender Man be appropriate? There seem to be a few mentions of The Rake on edited websites, but not a lot of in-depth coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to List of internet related phenomena would be about it.TheLongTone (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedily deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent[edit]

Endorse closure as speedied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 20 December 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)

I happened upon these while looking at the new pages feed, and I'm not sure about the intent behind them. I think it definitely falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as rather random categories (fraudster + Jewish/Irish) - there's no connection between them (i.e. they're not fraudsters because they're Jewish/Irish, or the other way around), and the only reason I can think of to categorize them like this would be racism-intentioned synthesis (pardon the lack of good faith) which would somewhat become a WP:BLP concern. Unless that is confirmed, though, I think we should stick to the first issue. Ansh6 6 6 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't need to be an inherent connection as in List of Irish novelists. Nobody is claiming there is an inherent tendency for Irish people to be novelists. In fact many lists categorise by two informative characteristics, which have no implied causative connection eg. List of English-language Canadian game shows or List of hotels in Singapore, which are not hotels because they're in Singapore, or in Singapore because they're hotels. The connection itself is informative. Feel free to make lists for English Americans and African Americans, or Dutch South Africans (perhaps making one for all South Africans first like this for all Americans). There is no reason to delete these new ones. SpaceBobber (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogies are quite incorrect. More appropriate ones would be List of Irish novelists of German descent, List of English-language Canadian game shows with hosts from New York, or List of hotels in Singapore run by Pashtuns. This is the type of arbitrary categorization we have here. Another problem which you do not mention is the inclination of people to automatically link them, which is why it's a BLP issue. Ansh6 6 6 11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can use even better analogies. American film directors of Japanese descent, American military personnel of Japanese descent, Fictional American people of Greek descent, American mixed martial artists of Italian descent. It's really amazing, there are thosands of these. I am not sure what the issue is here. SpaceBobber (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you ignored the second part of my comment. Anyways, I'm going to bed, it's almost 4 here. Ansh6 6 6 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So should we delete all lists in case people 'link them'? What can this even mean? Is there a link? Should we delete Fictional American people of Greek descent in case people think Greek Americans are all 'fictional'? Lol. SpaceBobber (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fraudsters. I'm not sure if this is a recreation of a deleted article. But it's too short to be a list (that much should be uncontroversial). There's a clear difference between doing lists by nationality and lists by ethnic group: crime topics are often covered on a nation-by-nation basis, but there's no evidence that Jewish-American fraudsters are discussed as a group in reliable sources or that the ethnicity of these people had any relation to their crimes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#List_of_Jewish_American_fraudsters --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:American criminals by ethnic or national origin SpaceBobber (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because there's a poorly-populated category doesn't mean it's a valid topic for a list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You have to give a valid reason for deletion. SpaceBobber (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It does sometimes happen, of course, that a user will nominate an article for deletion out of a desire to censor or hide the content, but one should be able to respond to these nominations with reliable sources and policy-based arguments. If the deletion rationale really is that thin, it should be easy to refute." SpaceBobber (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (to continue from the above)... nor that there is any particular need to distinguish between Jewish-American fraudsters and Christian-American fraudsters or any other x-American fraudsters. Why would there be any need to differentiate between criminals on the basis of religion or culture unless the suggestion is that their religion or culture caused them to be otherwise more predisposed to fraudulent behaviour than those of other cultures/religions. Their culture is irrelevant to their crime, as is the case for most of those listed at Fraud#Notable_fraudsters. Stalwart111 10:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure culture is irrelevant to crime. That sounds like a rather bold claim which could be easily dispelled by any number of sources. But if it's true there is nothing to fear as no group will turn out to be overrepresented. Maybe you can take a look here and see if any group is overrepresented, which would be terrible if it was the case, since there is no connection according to you. But if it is true, well then it's true, so it's win-win. In any case, I'm not suggesting anything, just making a list with two characteristics like any other. There may or may not be a connection between homosexuality and acting, but it's still interesting to have a list. BTW I see Ponzi on your list so a list of Italian Americans should be made too. Thanks. SpaceBobber (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Culture, generally, is relevant to crime, but one's cultural heritage (unless related specifically to the crime, like religious terrorism) is not. Shapiro is a Yiddish surname... should Nevin Shapiro be on your list? What about Arthur A. Goldberg? It's a patently ridiculous categorisation and borderline racist. Of course you're "suggesting something". We'll assume good faith, but we're not idiots. I also strongly suspect the many of the single-purpose accounts who have made creating and defending these lists their life's work are probably connected. The editing patterns certainly suggest as much. Stalwart111 11:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure name calling will pass as a logical argument here. None of the other categorisations are 'ridiculous', 'racist', 'suggestive' or 'quack' in your mind. What so different about this one? I really don't understand. I don't see Shapiro described as Jewish, but will add Goldberg now. Thanks. SpaceBobber (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. SpaceBobber (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have speedied it if this debate had not been started. It's an incomplete list with no context and no references. Deb (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References are in the articles per List of American mobsters of Irish descent. I plan to expand these and create new lists. How many individuals are needed to be acceptable? SpaceBobber (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two names when the article was posted - which definitely doesn't constitute a "list". More importantly, I think we should be very chary about allowing the posting of other articles that label someone a fraudster or similarly derogatory term without including references in the list as well as the articles. It would be different if the subject of the list were uncontroversial, such as "Cooks of Jewish descent".Deb (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've opened an SPI here, if it turns up anything this whole mess can be G5'd. Ansh6 6 6 12:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a problem that the criteria for inclusion are unclear. The title mentions "Jewish descent" but the description of the list mentions "Jewish American". The two are not the same (e.g. some people of Jewish descent aren't Jewish by most people's criteria, and some Jewish Americans are converts or otherwise not ethnically Jewish). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to you making this point on 'Jewish American Musicians'. Oh, sorry, I thought you had an NPOV for a second. My bad. SpaceBobber (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as both a recreation and the work of banned sockpuppets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus here that the mere presence of a few nominations for industry-internal "awards" for a single work, in the absence of any non-trivial independent biographical coverage beyond that, is not sufficient grounds for notability. The current wording of WP:PORNBIO, known to be heavily disputed on this exact point, cannot be cited as compulsory grounds for overriding this strong local consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessa Rhodes[edit]

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

PROD declined. Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Subject has been nominated for two awards but has not won any awards. Without any awards and only two nominations, this does not pass the porn guidelines. Safiel (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. First of all, two nominations are sufficient for the subject to pass both WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO, here's an AfD for Celeste Star, proving that it is. At the time of that AfD, Star only had two performer award nominations and the result of that AfD was a unanimous keep vote. Secondly, Rhodes has been nominated for three well known and significant awards, not two. She has been nominated for two "Best New Starlet" awards, which consensus has established as significant awards according to this discussion. I would also like to point out that one of those awards is the highly prestigious AVN Best New Starlet Award. Rhodes's "Best Supporting Actress" nomination has also been established as significant in at least two AfD's: One for Capri Anderson, and coincidentally, Celeste Star's AfD as well. The keep vote in both of those AfD's was unanimous by the way. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on this just yet (I'll have another look into the awards and sources) but I have to take issue with your suggestion that the discussion you link to demonstrates "consensus has established [those awards] as significant awards". Rather, the consensus was that they shouldn't be automatically excluded. That does not automatically make the reverse true - they are not automatically then considered "significant". That consensus (such as it is) established that they should not be excluded, nothing more. Don't over-read the result. Stalwart111 10:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO states that an adult film actor must have "won a well-known and significant industry award, or have been nominated for such an award several times". This discussion took place on the talk page for WP:Notability (people) and the purpose of it was to determine which awards were "well-known and significant" and which ones weren't. Basically, that discussion determined that newcomer awards should not be excluded from PORNBIO because they are indeed well known and significant as required by this guideline. The statement I made above was correct and not a misinterpretation of the discussions outcome. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like hell. As one of the editors who participated extensively in that discussion, it was quite clear that the purpose of that discussion was not to resolve all questions of which awards passed the well-known/significant standard, but to settle the question for a small number of specific classes of awards and establish a framework for consideration of awards in general in future deletion discussions. Consensus was pretty well established for the point that no award category and no awarding organization's awards were deemed to pass the test across-the board. At the point where the discussion became intractable, there were two competing texts, one from Morbidthoughts, one from me, and both called for taking into account both the awarding organization and the award category. Your description of the outcome is simply a purposeful misrepresentation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, again, the discuss seems fairly clearly to have dealt with the question of whether certain things should be excluded. Automatically listing those things as inclusion criteria is a ways off. It's definitely an overreach. HW seems inclined to think it was intentional. I don't know enough of the history to make that call but continuing to misinterpret that discussion will likely be seen as deliberate, even by those who are uninvolved. Stalwart111 02:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even stronger delete. Non-bio. Nonnotable award, issued for several dozen per year and God only knows how many are nominated and for what. - Altenmann >t 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant RS coverage. Fails PORNBIO. I disagree with Rebecca1990's assertion that the two Best New Starlet nominations are enough to pass the nominated several times test. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She has THREE performer award nominations, not two. Two AVN Awards for Best New Starlet and Best Supporting Actress and an XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the points cogently made by the other delete !voters, I'd add that the purportedly qualifying nominations (AVN/XBIZ) all come from the same year/award cycle. The "multiple years" standard enjoyed consensus and was applied in dozens of deletion discussions without significant objection or opposition. It was removed from the guideline text without sufficient discussion, and the discussion over its removal never reached a resolution. Therefore, the pre-existing consensus should be applied, and the article deleted, because (aside from the other reasons given) the subject fails even the very low (and disputed if not deprecated) PORNBIO standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself HW, the multiple years criteria is no longer a part of PORNBIO. How would you react to someone using your "the pre-existing consensus should be applied" argument to keep an article with only scene related and ensemble awards and nominations? Your argument opens the door for users to argue that articles of non-notable porn actors should be kept because of a previous guideline, do you not realize that? I'm pretty sure this isn't something you approve of. The past PORNBIO guideline is completly irrelevant. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead wrong, Rebecca. Per WP:GUIDELINE, "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices." Changing the text of a guideline page without consensus is ineffective, and the alteration of the text does not change the practice, and should not be enforced or implemented.. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several users in this discussion who argue that the PORNBIO guideline should be stricter, yet no one has brought up the multiple years criteria as something that should be reinstated. If consensus was really in favor of keeping that guideline than someone would have brought it up by now in that two month long discussion. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument above. Finnegas (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A subject does not currently need to win any awards in order to meet the PORNBIO standard (which is merely currently "disputed" not "deprecated")...just being nominated (whether those nominations come over the course of one year or more) for "a well-known and significant industry award several times" is enough to meet that standard. The current, accepted dictionary definition of "several" at AfD is two. The AVN "Best New Starlet" award is a major award in the adult industry that can lead (but does not always lead) to more work & prestige in the adult film industry, and it is not issued to "several dozen (people) per year". The AVN "Best Supporting Actress" award is also obviously a major award.

I'm not quite sure what some of the word salady-type (for lack of a better phrase) commentary from around December 16th is supposed to be pointing out, but I really doubt that anyone can point to a previous Wikipedia discussion that shows definitively that the above awards are not major awards. The closing administrator's comments here ("It looks like there's a pretty good consensus for excluding scene awards and ensemble awards as criteria. New-comer awards are clearly consensus keep") are pretty informative as to how & why the PORNBIO standard was modified at the time in question. Obviously, not all awards (adult film-related or not) are considered to be "well-known and significant" under both the PORNBIO & ANYBIO standards.

One of the current proposed changes to PORNBIO is to consider only current nominations, as opposed to past nominations that did not yield an actual award, so I don't think that the "let's go back to an old standard that no longer exists that somehow justifies a 'delete' vote" is an argument that holds any water. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that justifies statements like: "The 'multiple years' standard enjoyed consensus and was applied in dozens of deletion discussions without significant objection or opposition. It was removed from the guideline text without sufficient discussion, and the discussion over its removal never reached a resolution." The PORNBIO standard has been changed many times over the years (and I think it will be changed for the better soon), and one needs consensus to go back to any old (or new) standard.

One thing that could be removed from the existing article that's in question here is the "tattle blog" citation, as it's likely non-reliable. It also doesn't add any needed information to the article IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete. I also agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument. This should be deleted. 67.189.103.214 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe that the nominations alone are enough to pass WP:ANYBIO as they are only nominations and the prestige of those awards are strongly in question. To further, I do not see a lot of coverage beyond run of the mill, that would suggest this individual could pass on those grounds. Mkdw ^talk 16:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know this discussion has a lot more "delete" votes than "keep" votes, but I think it would be fair to relist the discussion. WP:RELIST states that if a discussion "seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it" and that is obviously the case here. All of the "delete" voters above are ignoring established guidelines on WP such as WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO, which the subject passes, and they are ignoring consensus determining that the subject's nominations are indeed well known and significant. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Much of the content was already on Tumor Treating Fields in regards to the study. If the corporate name needs to be added it can be done. Mkdw ^talk 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Novocure[edit]

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

Cannot find sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to build an article. All the news source hits are PR. The handful of PubMed articles all appear to be connected to NovoCure itself. Zad68 03:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Undid revision 58bye (talk) restore sinebot. you're not actually intentionally not signing AND removing sinebot on purpose to avoid accountability are you?

NO I put in tilds instead. never mind me mind your own self , I can mind me just fine. Can't tell you how upset I am cause you know this whole retaliation thing over a few edits earlier in the day.... and now you wanna say I'm trying to infer that I am acting in a shaddy or less than honest manner. Say ya no, it's offensive. Highly offensive but don't worry about it. It doesn't affect you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I assume this was made in good faith and NOT in retailiation for edit disagreements earlier in the day. The citations include several sources and are impeachable. To cited the citations as a reason for deletion.....it really makes me question the good faith intent of my fellow editor. Novocure has gone through 3 phase clinicals and that stuff is cited in the references . And I can ad more too. This novocure is a breakthrough and it is easy to widely source. Doctors are proscribing it today. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably meant "unimpeachable". But that's exactly the point of this AFD argument--the sourcing isn't sufficient. The sources that are currently in the article certainly aren't sufficient, and I couldn't find any that were. If you find some that demonstrate the subject of the article passes WP:GNG please bring them. Zad68 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are just fine, I would appreciate less passive aggressiveness and more maturity . Five citations 3 that go further for more insight... and your just saying you can't seem them or that you dont like them? That is not the case here now is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs)
    - The main point is that the sources aren't independent of the subject, as required by WP:GNG. To build an article we need multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic. We don't have that for the subject of this article. Zad68 04:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your main point is not worth taking the bait over. We are not doing anything. I am defending my article against a retaliator trying to get me over some imagined slight on wikipedia.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/novocure-enrolls-first-patients-in-a-randomized-trial-of-novottftm-therapy-for-patients-with-brain-metastases-from-non-small-cell-lung-cancer-2013-11-19

http://www.dnaindia.com/pressreleases/press-release-novocure-treats-first-recurrent-glioblastoma-patient-in-japan-with-novottf-therapy-1868362

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/health&id=9278252

Citation is not gonna devnul this article. The Citations are real. Novocure is real. A quick curory search will just spill forth a torrent reputable 1st 2nd and 3rd party citations.

This is a real treatment for cancer. And it really deserves it's own wiki article. Just like chemo and surgery, and radiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear lack of independent, reliable sources; fails notability criteria. MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on waht masty? Do you as well just dislike the sourceing? Or is it the editor your have issue with. I know the notablity thing has no legs. Did you bother to read the talk page or did you go strait to articles of deletion.. Because I PROD first myself... you know. Give the benifit of the doubt. .... This is a cancer treatment with NO KNOWN CONTRAINDICATIONS!

Yeah. It is highly notable . More so than some realize .. more so than some would like. but notable all the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that the company meets our notability guidelines as demonstrated in third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that isnt right. This company cures cancer. The links provided show phase 2 and three clincal results as well as a link to there approval letter. The treatment itself has no known contraindications.This is in the talk pages if anyone ever thinks to bother with it. And best of all this is a baby artile just made a few days ago . I was gonna make her better. Now I got my old war buddy Masty rallying the troops. and that same old feeling of being bent over. You get to call me names , mob, blank out my talk text. it isn't right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to Tumor Treating Fields, or vice-versa. Both are basically the same subject (company & its product). Taken hogether, one may find significant independent coverage, eg. in Science Magazine. Not to say that a FDA-approved treatment was notable for FDA, it would be weird to be rejected by wikipedia. (Not to say that FDA is most surely an independent, reliable third-party source) - Altenmann >t 07:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nowhere near enough significant, independent coverage in reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:CORPDEPTH in my view. Research papers from those running the company isn't coverage. There are plenty of FDA-approved treatments, pharmaceuticals and other programs but that doesn't make them notable. I agree that independent coverage of that FDA approval might get us closer but in and of itself, I don't think approval is enough to substantiate notability. Stalwart111 10:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only criteria that matters is whether we have WP:MEDRS sources that can attest to the importance of this article. As it is, we have listings, FDA approvals and some requests for special pleading from anonymous editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THEN IT METS THE MEDRS? So since such is the case what is resoning to your decision?

Merge per Altenmann. Their treatment (not a cure) is more noteworthy. The only difference is the side effects (neurological instead of physiological). --Auric talk 13:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've dug out and added a couple of reasonable sources. I'd say this was borderline, but if it survives it should probably be merged with Tumor Treating Fields. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine work as always Alexbrn. I support along with the several others here a merge with redirect into Tumor Treating Fields. There just isn't enough independent coverage of NovoCure the company to build this article, but there does look to be enough to properly develop the TTF article. Zad68 14:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is great that you two are so supportive of ech other , especially on all the articles I might read and edit. I just want to encourage you both remember to do your best by the article and ALWAYS double check your references. Two seconds of extra attention can save a lifetime of problems TalkFirstThenEdit (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sourcing to build an encyclopedic article around. Yobol (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Independent, reliable, secondary sources are absolutely essential, and are mandatory for an article on a company dealing with human health. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Yobol. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Secret ^account 14:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea national under-14 football team[edit]

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

No indication that this topic has been the subject of significant coverage. C 679 09:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8 other topics listed below are being added to the discussion under the same criteria.

Thanks, C 679 09:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Could be merged and redirected to any U15 or U16 teams if the community does not want to delete. Giant Snowman 12:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The South Korea FA has information specifically on the South Korea national under-14 football team here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2nyte (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources do not establish notability. C 679 13:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no way laundry lists of non-notable juniors are going to pass our inclusion guidelines (like WP:NFOOTY). I'm not even sure competition between any of those teams would generate enough coverage to be considered notable. Stalwart111 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Partha[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with claiming it is WP:TOOSOON. --Tco03displays (talk) 04:38, 4 December 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, KTC (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as "no consensus" so ya'll can discuss the merge proposal on the appropriate talk pages of the subjects. Thank you for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Affirmation of Faith 1966[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:N (or WP:NBOOK). I cannot find significant coverage about this document or statement in unaffiliated reliable sources to meet notability criteria. For example, found nothing significant in gBooks hits. Novaseminary (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and repurpose to an article on the Strict Baptists, which at present redirects to Reformed Baptists. We also have a List of Strict Baptist Churches. We ought to have an article on the denomination, linked to the present brief section in the Reformed article. The article under discussion would provide a section for that, and the present title could then become a redirect to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strict Baptists was merged into Reformed Baptists as a result of this discussion. St Anselm (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I think that merge was good. And I don't know that this 1966 document is important enough to justify any significant portion of that article. Nor do we know the document is important enough to the broader group or related to a broad enough group of the "Strict Baptists" to avoid a redirect being misleading or confusing. That redirect could also be confusing because some similarly named documents are notable in their own right (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Category:Baptist statements of faith) even if this one is not. Novaseminary (talk) 03:13, 4 December 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) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 02:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact spectrometer[edit]

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

It is not clear that there is such a term as "impact spectrometer". Googling produces about 80% references to "electron impact spectrometer", which is a different concept, and 20% copies of this article (including the strangely spelled "sonicspctometer"). With few edits, and no incoming links, it should be deleted. Dan Griscom (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar ♔ 03:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability on searching. The references in the article are not relevant. Possibly some legitimate subject has been misunderstood by the article author. -- 101.119.15.68 (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete. No evidence. sonicspctometer is in fact sonicspectrometer, a redirect. - Altenmann >t 08:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Impact microscope was added to this AfD by Altenmann. -- 101.119.15.30 (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impact microscope also. As with Impact spectrometer, there is no evidence of notability on searching, the references in the article are not relevant, and the article is totally incoherent. -- 101.119.15.30 (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a type of diagnostic procedure in materials science called Acoustic emission analysis and some types of acoustic emission testing involve impact events to generate the acoustic emissions, e.g., this paper. It may be worth a mention in the Acoustic emission article. But I haven't found any evidence of either "Impact spectrometer" or "Impact microscope" as terms being used in the literature. These seem to be neologisms. Per WP:NEO and an apparent lack of refs discussing these terms, the two articles seem to fail notability guidelines, per WP:GNG, the articles should be deleted.. --Mark viking (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot find any notable sources to this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have nominated Impact microscope for deletion. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dtgriscom has fixed an improper listing of Impact microscope. This means that Impact microscope is no longer included within this AfD. -- 101.119.14.131 (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards restoration if coverage comes in at a later point. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maru Dhar Mharo Ghar[edit]

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

Non-notable film/show lacking content and references of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non-notable film not suitable as an encyclopedic entry. Itsalleasy (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:38, 2 December 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) 01:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Hasan is a notable person and he is lead actor and producer of this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.71.92 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Apparently project has begun filming.[7] Article needs a corrected title and we need to seek input for non-English coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brad Listi. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other People Podcast[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast lacking GHits and GNews of substance nor do references support notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:16, 2 December 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) 01:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to podcast host Brad Listi. Subject is not independently notable, as only independent refs are mentions in lists of podcasts, not significant coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion – or merge with Brad Listi, and redirect the term there; podcast is not notable. I think the title of podcast is "Other People," and the wikipedia article's title makes this confusing, though I also found references to "Other People Podcast." It gets mentioned in lists of 5 or 10 podcasts, by bloggers, intervees, etc., but I didn't find any book or major news stories about it. NY Daily News has an interview with Listi on the podcast, but in their blog section. Filmmaker Magazine has a short piece. Agyle (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Todd (editor)[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for WP:Author; he's written some stuff and edited some stuff, which is what journalists and editors do, but not attracted much attention from his peers. Article created and maintained by COI editor, most of the sources either primary or completely spurious. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. reliability of sources is questionable. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stephen Todd was the launch editor of Numéro.50.9.165.84 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please see WP:Coin#Fashion Net for discussion of 50.9.165.84 in relation to this and other articles created and maintained by confirmed COI editor Shousokutsuu. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 6 December 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) 04:19, 8 December 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) 01:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of which publications the subject has written for, he isn't proven to meet any of the four criteria of WP:AUTHOR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selçuk Yorgancıoğlu[edit]

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

BLP not meeting notability criteria Yankeeeye (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very well-known Turkish businessman, one of the pioneers in the field of Investment Banking and Private Equity in Turkey. Yorgancioglu should be considered notable since he was quoted many times by very well-known newspapers, the article is NPOV with reliable sources. For example: Yorgancioglu is the business-partner of Arif Naqvi. Hurriyet's Vahap Munyar(one of the largest newspapers in Turkey)quotes: Selcuk Yorgancioglu and Abraaj Capital with their skills will take Acibadem Healthcare(an investee company)to the world-league. This was one of the largest exits in Turkey and later IHH's IPO was ranked 5th worldwide in 2012. User:PEguyTR 11:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable, or at least not convincingly so Ithinkicahn (talk) 17:47, 6 December 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) 04:19, 8 December 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) 01:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle zink[edit]

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

None of the provided sources seem independent of the subject, and don't look to discuss her in detail (and a wikia isn't reliable). Article seems to be a coatrack for the books, which don't seem very notable either. Chris857 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be NN. reddogsix (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I spent significant time removing extensive copyright violations culled from a variety of sources. At this point, the subject meets the notability guidelines for authors, due to significant independent articles and reviews about her first book, which has also received a couple of honors and significant critical review. Cindy(talk) 05:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've moved Michelle zink to Michelle Zink. Proper capitalization and all. Chris857 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews and edits by Cindy pass AUTHOR #3 multiple reviews. I could probably find more if anyone requests. -- GreenC 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cindy has done some great work on it and now meets WP:AUTHOR in terms of coverage on her publications. Mkdw ^talk 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dave Grossman (author). Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace[edit]

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

Article has existed for several years. Unsourced, no evidence of notability presented. During a quick Google search I could not find any notable reviews, only reviews from special-interest websites and a personal essay written by a government employee. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make a redirect Already discussed in as much detail as necessary in the article on the author, Dave Grossman (author). I don't think this article is acceptable, nor is a full article necessary. A summary as extended as this one, of a non-fiction book that is anything short of famous, is usually considered as promotional for the authors ideas. See also On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, which probably should be handled similarly, though it is much better known. As for reviews, though, see this article, which may be what is meant by a personal essay & work of a government employee, but it's from a published work that's a RS. the book is however in 350 libraries, and a few works that may possible be linking to it are listed on the book's worldcat search. I admit my view for deletion is founded to some degree on the nature of the present article. Blatant promotionalism like this should be removed, and then if really justified a proper article written, but things need to be kept in proportion. Not every book that may technically meet NBOOK needs a separate article: sometimes a suitable coverage in the article on the author is more appropriate, or even simply justified as our reaction to promotional writing, which should not be rewarded. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Freely admitting that this is a weak argument for keep, I'm going to throw it out there. Given the specialized nature of the book, I wouldn't expect to find it widely reviewed in mainstream media channels. The target audience doesn't go to the NY Times to find a book on the psychology of combat, they go to AR15.com or PoliceOne. That said, I did find some relevant occurrences. This multipage review [8] is found on the Dept of Veterans Affairs website. Specifically, the author (favorably) reviews the book for use by the VA in understanding VA claims related to psychological problems related to combat. This NPR link [9] is admittedly an interview with Grossman, but the interview is because he is the author of On Combat, making him the subject matter expert they wanted. In my search, I found a lot of reliable sources that used him for interviews etc, citing him as the author of this book. This link [10] from Camp Lejune Naval Hospital lists the book as a resource for understanding PTSD. Lastly, the book is on the recommended reading list[11] for those taking the Moral, Ethical and Psychological Dimensions of War course from the US Army Infantry School. Arguably, that is an endorsement of the book by the Infantry School. Again, I fully realize that his is not a very strong argument and anticipate it failing. I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'll go with Niteshift36's sources here. They are not overwhelming as mentioned but given the specialist nature of the topic, and the book appears to be recommended and in use by professionals don't see a compelling reason to delete. -- GreenC 18:00, 8 December 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) 01:14, 9 December 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) 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the cogent reasoning of DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's ridiculous that this has been open for 28 days. It should have been closed on Dec 23 as a no consensus after being extended twice. Instead, it's just left hanging here, trying to attract more delete votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming to much, I don't think there is any intent on this not yet having been closed. Any admin who comes by can close this. In fact, there's a noticeboard somewhere (sorry, the name/link escapes me right now) where you can request closure for discussions, including AfDs, that are overdue. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Wachira[edit]

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

No indication of significance. Brownbarons (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 3 December 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) 01:15, 9 December 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) 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple reliable source has his name. So keep it. I will make this page better, but it shouldn't be deleted really. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellarmine Report[edit]

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

A subsidiary of non notable company CAI Publishing, Inc. Fails WP:ORG no significant coverage in secondary sources and the only claim to notability appears to be it's previous name "Catholic Apologetics International" upsetting a former Bishop? Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 December 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) 01:15, 9 December 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) 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lindbergh[edit]

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

This was a redirect, turned into an article, turned binto a redirect, and then turned back into an article. I am bringing this here for a wider discussion because I have my concerns about notability, and another user has expressed the same opinion on the article talk page - basically if it's not deemed fit to be a redirect (to her father's article, my preferred option) then it should simply be deleted as she does not appear to be notable. Giant Snowman 20:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is her obituary in the Books section of the New York Times, which indicates they considered her a notable author of children's books. Searching for coverage is complicated by the fact that she shared her name with her more famous mother. I believe that she was independently notable, not just because of her very famous parents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak) She was notable enough to warrant a NYT obituary, but that's probably because of her family. She was a published author, but only one book currently shows up on Amazon, and it's been out of print for nearly 40 years, as far as I can tell. On the other hand, my local library system does list her as the author of about 20 books in the collection, so perhaps that implies that she is notable. Rks13 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google Books search incorrectly shows her mother Anne Morrow Lindbergh as the author of some of the books written by the daughter. Lack of Amazon listings for an author who died 20 years ago indicates little, as notability is not temporary. If she was mentioned only as a daughter of famous people, I wouldn't be recommending "keep". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328 and WP:NTEMP. Substantive NYT obit is strong evidence of her notability. Here are book reviews from Christian Science Monitor [12] and Washington Post[13]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:13, 3 December 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) 01:16, 9 December 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) 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caseable[edit]

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

The page / company do not meet the notability criteria ..... Brownbarons (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this company does meet the notability criteria because it has been the first supplier of customizable laptop covers back in 2010. That's somehow innovative. It probably is not the only one anymore and does not have the biggest market share, but still I found this remarkable about the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KategorischerImperativ (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That claim of being the first was referenced to a site billed as "We tell your story to the world!" - reliable source would be needed to support the claim, and at any rate I am unconvinced that it would be in itself evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your advice. I have searched for a better source and I found a newspaper article about the company. I still believe that caseable is worth to be talked about. KategorischerImperativ (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles about the company at Wirtschaftswoche, t3n Magazin, a Fast Company site, Die Welt, and a Forbes blog make it notable under GNG; the depth of coverage was obscured by the use of bare URLs. I've cleaned it up a bit, although I have also posted a question to the talk page regarding where it is legally based. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for cleaning up the sources. I think now it is more obvious that caseable got quite some buzz from newspapers, too. KategorischerImperativ (talk) 10:39, 4 December 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) 01:16, 9 December 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) 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RT_(TV_network)#Presenters. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Martin[edit]

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

May fail Wikipedia's WP:GNG. Perhaps others can discover some less fringy sources to establish her notability...looks like she was nominated before and it was decided to redirect the article. But, it's since been created. Might meet speedy...but I'd rather ya'll decide that :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's a presenter and host of Breaking the Set on the RT network (tv show), for which she's gotten some press like [14] and [15], not to mention a pretty successful youtube channel. She's quite Googlable, but you're right that most of the sources seem pretty weak. She's been involved with a number of notable projects with WP pages. Other than RT, most of it is marginal at best, but in combination with the TV work I think they add up to notability. I expect that searches in other languages might turn up even more. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed the previous AfD; I'll just note that, in comparing the current article to the prior deleted one, there is one additional independent source (the pleasontonweekly article), and it has a lot less refspam (links to her own show), so I'd say it just barely passes WP:CSD#A4. With the sources presented above by Rhododendrites, that may be enough to move past WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER; I'll let editors decide that. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes WP:GNG comfortably. In addition to all that's mentioned above, she's gotten coverage from a major publication like Der Spiegel. [16] Zvonko (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the page has been successfully nominated for deletion in the past and was then redirected to RT (TV network)#Programming, but later it was created again for some reason. Indeed, the subject does not meet WP:GNG and doesn't have sufficient independent RS. Serioudly, is every American journalist going to have an article on Wikipedia? Shalom11111 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 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) 01:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Zvonko (above). Not every American journalist has their own international TV show.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but many journalists who do have their own TV show don't have a Wikiepdia article, and rightly so. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 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) 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had not heard of Abby Martin, Breaking the Set, or RT America. As far as I can tell, all of them are exceptionally obscure. I found a single reliable source that briefly mentions the show, but it points out that "RT's American audience, like that of other foreign cable stations, is too small to be measured, according to a press official at Nielsen, the company that measures TV ratings in the United States." It gets mentioned by bloggers, in its own promo materials, in Martin's self-promotion, but she and the television show almost seem to not exist to professional news sites. Agyle (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is International. That the audience in America is small or that you haven't heard of it or the station doesn't mean it's not notable. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Martin has aired interviewing the likes of President Jimmy Carter, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura and Larry King. Anyone seeing these shows and checking here for more info, would be disappointed if Wikipedia had no article. Regarding the size of RT news, according to Wikipedia, "In 2013 RT has become the first TV news channel in history to reach 1 billion views on YouTube."--Rickbrown9 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried finding a reliable news source about her Carter interview, but found only blogs, primary sources and such. It's not a question of what she does, but of finding solid secondary sources about what she does. Please link solid sources with info about her work. Agyle (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding international audience, my assessment of Martin's non-notability is based on Internet searches, which are also international. RT America's notability isn't in question. Agyle (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a legit news story that mentions her that I overlooked, which was linked in a previous version of the wikipedia article: israelnationalnews.com (note that algemeiner 1 and algemeiner 2 are just fancy–looking blogs). I also two found others I overlooked, by googling with other terms: tagesspiegel.de spiegel.de. Agyle (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected redirect or Delete - There still doesn't seem to be adequate significant independent coverage to support a standalone article on this living person. Of the 4 sources currently in the article, 3 are not independent of the subject (the subject's home page, and 2 from Media Roots, which is the subject's own website) and the other seems to be a local story about the subject leaving for college. The article from Der Spiegel noted above is independent, but hardly represents significant coverage of the subject. Probably restoring the redirect from the prior AfD, but protecting it until adequate coverage is available, is preferable to deletion, since the RT site is an appropriate target if a reader is searching for her; on the other hand, the specific target site doesn't even mention her. Rlendog (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. The article is woefully sourced, and the Der Spiegel article mentioned here goes not much beyond passing mentions. Sandstein 10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see anything in the article that raises her above being simply a TV journalist doing an adequate job. Were there some indication of an exceptional or unusual achievement worthy of encyclopaedic mention, then I'd be inclined to keep, but I see no evidence of that. --gilgongo (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In fact I will vote for why is this a controversy? I legitimately did not hear of her until someone sent me to an excellent interview she did with Oliver Stone. I was impressed, which is subjective, but I wanted to know more basic facts: where was she born? what was her career like to this point? The question I submit to the people who have nominated this for deletion: where else would you want me to go for this information if not Wikipedia?? I have zero-percent special interest in this topic, and if there were no article I would write one, because I am sure there are lots of other people like me who have a need to find out basic information like this, and I want to them to got to Wikipedia first. LaurentianShield (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW just checked WP:GNG. I think it is possible to misread this in cases of biographies, that you want society at large to establish notability, and be able to cite a source for such. Remember what the preamble to WP:GNG says: "Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." Check out WP:IINFO for examples of "indiscriminate." Abby Martin is already notable, as an objective common sense fact, and hardly compares to things like "lyrics databases". The issue of sources then becomes: don't find out where she went to college by doing primary research, but get it from reliable secondary sources. LaurentianShield (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Some of the arguments above essentially amount to ILIKEIT. We do not cover all television journalist--we are NOT a DIRECTORY. WE distinguish not on the basis of the ones people here ought to be important but on the basis of which ones already are. None of the keep arguments seem to be addressed to this. BTW, if she or anyone else is notable, we can perfectly well take non-controversial information such as well the person went to school from reliable non-independent sources such as their published CV. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chiming in DGG but I need to defend my case if you think it merely boils down to "I like it". As I said, I have zero special interest beyond the fact that I saw an interview and wished to know a few basic facts. Please read WP:IINFO as I suggested and tell me how that applies in this case. I realize that with popular culture figures, this can be an emotional and confusing topic, but clearly Martin is "notable" -- I myself noted her, and was so glad I could find out all I needed to know on Wikipedia. In this case, I am an excellent example of a reader with a legitimate need, and was surprised anyone could read her as not notable. Editors need to use judgment if interpreting WP:GNG and in order to do that it is important to go back to the purpose of WP:GNG, in the way that I quoted above. I think people are concerned that Wikipedia will be used for private gain, and so use a "strict constructionist" interpretation of WP:GNG, but it would be twice as frustrating to me as a reader to have to search around for basic information than for Wikipedia to take a more common sense interpretation at the risk of accidentally let some personal publicity leak in. LaurentianShield (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never Ending Gardens[edit]

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

Unsourced with no references รัก-ไทย (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No references isn't itself a reason for deletion. Even the most cursory google search turns up a bunch of sources. Only a couple are clearly RS, but this is just from the first two pages of ghits. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Someone may also want to think about creating the Dream for Africa article, which is a parent organization for this project, and fold the content of this page into it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 3 December 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) 01:19, 9 December 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) 00:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XOOM Energy[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional. Paid advocacy account (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=583062785#User:Wikifan115_--_paid_advocacy.3F)? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 2 December 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) 01:20, 9 December 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) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say weak keep. verifiable. an energy provider is not a mom-and-pop shop, i'd say rather notable; of interest to general public. - Altenmann >t 08:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Singh[edit]

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

Upcoming movie with no claim of notability and in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films says that articles on upcoming films should not exist unless the film shoot has begun, which this film did on November 19th. I've added some sources into the article, and since this is a film starring several notable actors, I think this should be kept. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As filming has begun, looking finds this topic IS being covered in multiple sources,[17][18] I think we do the project a service by allowing the topic to be improved over time and through regular editing. Let's enlist the aid of Project India and let it be done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:52, 2 December 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) 01:22, 9 December 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) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kirk (artist)[edit]

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

An illustrator, the article is cited to his website. I can't see anything reliable that claims he is important, or covers him in depth. He's claiming notability by association, it seems. Judging by the links to this article he was nominated for a World Fantasy Award but I don't think this can be considered major, or enough in itself to tip him over the notability threshold. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Sionk (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 2 December 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) 01:29, 9 December 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) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately I can't find any coverage in what would be considered reliable sources. There are sources online[19][20] but none that meet WP:RS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Luck Casino Marquette[edit]

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

Not notable casino. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. There are some routine licensing sources and a press release. PROD removed with the addition of the press release. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am trying to find out how to fix the article to be removed from the deletion process. I am new to Wiki I am not familiar/can't figure out the Talk system. What else do I need to do to fix the article. I added more citations and more information in the History. I am also trying to gather more information to build more integrity of the article. Davey5603 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is prolific coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, as a simple Google News search attests. Toohool (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following that link, most of them seem to be adverts or WP:ROUTINE. Did you have any concrete examples of what you see as good sources? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] for a start. There's are also tons of substantial articles listed from the Cedar Rapids Gazette, but they are behind a paywall. A Factiva search also turns up coverage from the Associated Press of the major events in the casino's history, though mostly not found on free sites. Toohool (talk) 23:38, 3 December 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) 01:34, 9 December 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) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons already established! And why was this relisted when there is no support for a delete and deletion is clearly not supported by the facts? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was relisted because there was support for deletion from one participant and support for keeping the article from two. Usually I look for more than 2-1 when closing an Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Brooks[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actress; fails WP:PERFORMER. Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from creator: I believe I addressed notability concerns in Talk:Amanda Brooks#Notability. I would think her starring role in D-War and her co-starring role in Flightplan would be sufficient to establish notability, not to mention her roles in Stiletto, River's End, The Canyons, Hellhounds, and General Hospital. Plus she has significant coverage in other web sites, see links given in the talk page. I take notability criteria very seriously and I review them carefully before creating an article, so I'm surprised that notability is being raised as an issue here. --RDBury (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I see your point of view, RDBury; but D-War was not that big a deal outside Korea; and Brooks did not star in Flightplan; indeed, her role is so obscure that the character is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Brooks is an attractive person with a fanbase; but I just don't see her limited resume adding up to the requisite notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see D-War pop up regularly U.S. television, not sure exactly where but probably on SyFy. Not the most memorable movie but not what you'd call an small, independent production either. I believe Brooks played a stewardess in Flightplan, correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, her role may not have been pivotal to the plot but that doesn't mean she didn't get enough screen time to get her name in the opening credits. The role does seem to be significant enough to be mentioned in the New York Times article as well as the other links listed in the talk page. Even without Flightplan, I think the criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," is more than met, a NetFlix search lists her in six movies, all but one of which has a WP article. Let me clarify something you mentioned as well. I created the article because she had a red link in the D-War and it seemed to me she met the notability criteria, not article because of a fan base, nor am I particularly a fan. --RDBury (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NACTOR, significant roles in multiple notable films eg. The Canyons, D-War (who cares if it was a box office success just in South Corea, the requirement is that a film should be notable, not "a commercial success in the US") and Hellhounds (I don't care too much about the above Flightplan discussion, not so crucial). Furthermore, several sources about her in Google News archives (eg. [28], [29], [30], [31]), maybe not so much to say she passes GNG but probably enough to say her and her career were noted. Cavarrone 09:27, 1 December 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) 01:52, 9 December 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) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that the selection of topics that are written about in this article constitutes original research by synthesis appears persuasive, and the "keep" opinions do not rebut it, with the exception of the opinion by VisitingPhilosopher, who however only provides sources for a small part of the content. Sandstein 10:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal relationship skills[edit]

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

This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, based on WP:SYNTHESIS. . This should never have gotten out of AfC. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm inclined to agree with DGG. It's highly cited, but it reads like a self-help essay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unencylopedic article, per WP:NOTESSAY. Alex^{discussion ★} 12:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DGG's observation that this should never have gotten out of AfC, but it was not a single point of failure. It also passed a DYK nomination before it was reconsidered and ultimately rejected. It does have a certain beguiling appeal, but if an encyclopedic article can be written for the topic (and I believe one could because there is a literature that addresses it), this is not that article.
What we have here appears to be a sort of "portal page" rather than an encyclopedic article, i.e., it is a collection of annotated links to other articles. The "See also" sections of some of those articles already serve the navigational function adequately, and the annotations here do not constitute substantive encyclopedic coverage of the topic.
The selection and organization of materials and the substance of the annotations appear to be a product of original synthesis. E.g. (1), headings such as "Kindness" and "Cheerfulness" appear to reflect an idiosyncratic or amorphous view of what is meant by a skill. E.g. (2), the article cites a corresponding article at Wikiquote, written by some of the same contributors, as an authority in the "History" section; but Wikiquote is not a citable source, and it is not even clear how some of these citations support statements in the article or pertain to the article's topic. (Cf. discussion at Wikiquote about dealing with amorphous synthesis of material related to the topic.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the article and looked at the sources before coming here, after seeing a notice about the article on the pscychology project talk page. The sourcing here is terrible, and several of the statements in the article are not in agreement with the cited sources. I read deeply in the professional literature in psychology, and this is simply not an encyclopedic topic. In general, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so this article really isn't written with Wikipedia in mind. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The voter above observes that an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic because the subject has such a large body of literature. I propose that the current article is reduced to a skeleton "stub" of such a proposed article. The reasons which the article has passed several review stages before are to be found in the Talk archives of the page. The Wikipedia list article criteria are to be the basis of the remodelled proposed page. The list policy criteria are that several notable sources are available as citations for the list, all containing the skills list. For example - "Discovering Psychology", fifth edition, Hockenbury. This text book lists such skills as: Coping (P495-525), Communication (p287-291), Critical thinking (P17), Enhancing well-being (P616), Raising psychologically healthy children (411), Providing effective social support (P517). I believe the skills which are perceived as "amorphous views" should have agreed notable terms identified instead of deletion.
There is an objection to the current cross-links to wikiquote, these links can be replaced by the valid citation sources (as currently listed on wikiquote). ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 01:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you plunge in and do that rewrite, and list yourself on the article talk page as a page-maintainer, you could bring me around to your point of view. Right now, the article isn't written for Wikipedia. I'm busy rewriting other articles in the scope of the psychology project, which is why I think deletion is the way to go for this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As requested I have plunged in to start the re-write. Currently renamed amorphous terms to pyschology text book terms and reduced verbiage to one line or no explanation for each skill; moved various side-bars to the bottom "external links" section. I have also listed myself as page maintainer. Let me know if this is heading in the right track. ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 02:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please. It behooves the encyclopedia to give this article a chance. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to agree with Ningauble. In a sense, this might have to be incubated some more, as right now it's so amorphous it might have to be blown up and started from scratch or redirected for now. The concept of such an article or "hub" is not bad, but it needs so much editing! Bearian (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regarding the comment above - it appears to me the problem talked about is being corrected now, blown up and started again. Stylistically the article deviated from policy before. Sticking to Wikipedia policies... The article qualifies as an article under Wikipedia list policy evidence link. The name of the article is appropriate to the Lead and is not a neologism evidence link. I see that the article now adheres to these policies: WP:HOWTO WP:VER WP:NPOV WP:N WP:NEO WP:SYN WP:ADVERT WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION WP:ORIG WP:LISTPURP WP:ENC WP:MOS WP:NOTPAPER WP:CITE WP:LEAD MOS:LAYOUT: evidence links. How did this happen?... Regarding the comments above over AfC, note the article is much changed since AfC. AfC reviewers worked hard on it (e.g., Sionk). I see that after AfC the article went through a 5 times expansion to qualify for a DyK. Those edits look like they came in after offline development evidence link. – I see the over-exuberance of that 5x expansion has been removed again (with the recent changes to the article). So the article is now heading back on track. If VisitingPhilosopher shows signs of continuing with the improvements and also patrolling the page, then I would vote for a strong keep. -- CathMontgomery (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up/improve. I got one of those notifications about this AfD because CathMontgomery mentioned me in passing, above. AfC is only a first line of defence and editors should accept any article that stands a reasonable chance of surviving in the bear pit of Wikipedia's mainspace. In this case, the topic is clearly a notable one, much discussed and written about. The fact its structure and conclusions are questionable isn't a reason to delete it. Sionk (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact its structure and conclusions are questionable may be considered precisely what marks it as an essay of original synthesis. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 16 December 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) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No coherent content. Random original research. Besides, Wikipedia is not a HOWTO guide. Every human activity requires skills. What about Skiing skills, Playing chess skills, knack for improvising and zillions more? - Altenmann >t 03:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have already voted Keep above, so this is simply a comment here. I tried to direct people to the talk archives via links above, but the current feedback on this page does not reference the dialog which has already taken place; so now I will paste the talk archive on each of the policy points raised above, so my education may continue here. If other policy points are raised, please check the Talk archive first and point out any fallacies in the approach I have taken for each policy. This article is only my third article so I would like to learn as much as I can from the experts who are giving feedback on this forum. Your help is much appreciated.

transcluded from here

The article is not a "howto" guide. There is no guide-like tone in any paragraph. All statements encompass universal themes, there are no verbs which are instructional. The style adheres strictly to simple, broad, statements of the encyclopedic facts. Examples of instructional verbs which are not valid on wikipedia: "Be positive", "Communicate", "Give presents". Any such instructional tone is not valid on wikipedia.

For "how-to" guides on this subject, see [http://www.wikihow.com/Improve-Your-Relationships] [www.wikihow.com/longdistance] etc.

transcluded from here

There is no original thought in the article. There are references to notable sources for all of the statements made in the article. With a reference for each sentence, this article is not in the nature of an essay. There are no original opinions in the article, notable referenced sources are linked to each sentence which appears to have an opinion. Therefore the article conforms to these policies, WP:ORIG WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION Secondary sources are used to show the people and organisations holding the opinions described in the article. The opinion sources are often provided with quotes, following this policy: "The main point is to help the reader and other editors." _{~ policy source: help the reader}

end transclusions

Please excuse the verbosity of these transclusions and feel free to delete them and just leave the links if they are not aesthetically pleasing. I am grasping at the opportunity to receive the best feedback, which has been of an extremely high calibre thus far. I personally believe the comment above about WP:OTHERCRAP strays off the remit of this discussion which should focus on this term and cataloging the literature on this exact subject, perhaps a more constructive suggestion would be to rename the article "History of relationship literature" or similar suggestion. But I caveat my interpretation of the AfD rules with the fact that this is my first AfD discussion and so I look forward to being educated in how these decisions are made. I will be very pleased if this debate results in a considered and defined criteria for this article. I received feedback that the article did not have enough substantive content, so I embarked on the expansion noted above. This expansion was reviewed and assessed by DyK reviewers. The expanded content then stayed in main space for over a year. Based on the advice above from WeijiBaikeBianji, and also others who support the article in principle, I attempted to redact the article, but now it has received the comment "No coherent content." I can't please all of the people all of the time. ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 01:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This 'article' falls into so many WP:NOT categories that it is too many to list. What I find the most problematic is the amount of loosely based synthesis of information and sources that as a topic it seems that this subtopic does exist but this article is too broad. While I understand the authors attempt to create a helpful article, Wikipedia is not a self-help relationship advice giving website. Also, to VisitingPhilosopher, I do not believe you have correctly applied some of the policies, guidelines, and essays you have linked as saying the article meets. Mkdw ^talk 05:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RX Plastics[edit]

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

I do not see anything sufficiently notable for an article. Providing pipes for reconstruction after an earthquake is not an exceptional thing for a piping company to do. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 06:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 9 December 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) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing that seems to make them notable NealeFamily (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I must disregard almost all "delete" opinions because they do not address the only reason conceivable, under Wikipedia guidelines and practices, why we would delete the article about this topic: that there aren't sufficient reliable sources to write an article about it. Instead, most "delete" opinions appear to be founded on arguments that are are not relevant for Wikipedia's purpose, such as personal experience or political and cultural concerns particular to the region. To be fair, many "keep" opinions also fall squarely into WP:ATA territory, but several "keep" opinions have argued, without being refuted, that this topic is covered in reliable sources. Any content deficiencies, or differences in opinion about whether Bengali Hindus are in some sense a distinct group, can be resolved by editing the article based on consensus. Sandstein 11:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Hindus[edit]

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

Bengali Hindus are only a religious group within the people who are ethnically and linguistically Bengali. So creation of a page with such nomenclature is violation of fact and only uphelds communal tone which must be avoided in Wikipedia Naved77 (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. Naved, I have been fighting to make this page unbiased and opbjective for long. But the single contributor in favour of this article whop also created the page never heeded to any of our logical arguments. Nopw it is hightime that this parochial communal article be deleted. RegardsUnmesh Bangali (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this utterly bitterly communal and biased article shall be immediately deleted. Reagrds Al-minar (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Bengali Hindus are only a religious group within the Bengali peoples. Not an individual ethnic group. - Rahat | Message 16:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced if there is editing issue that can dealt within the article.Please WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not argument and to say it should deleted because you feel it is communal to have a article like this is not a reason to delete. Separate religious groups speaking the same language do have separate articles there is no policy which says they cannot.Further there is substantial Reliable sources for this topic.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Pharaoh. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete The article deliberately proclaims a minority religious section of Bengali community as a separate ethno-linguistic entity which is height of fact twisting. Murad67 (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per Naved77, Rahat and Murad67. Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group is really influential and nice article too. Obvious Keep. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, but in its present form, this is a horrible Hindu nationalist article. Obviously we can have pages on ethno-religious groups like Arab Christians or Iranian Jews. To have separate pages detailing the demography and traditions of Bengal's eclectic religious communities will only strengthen the cultural coverage of WikiProject Bengal. I suggest Bangladeshi wikipedians create pages on Bengali Buddhists, Bengali Christians, Bangladeshi Ismailis, Bangladeshi Adivasis etc. Bengali Muslims, who are the world's second largest ethnic Muslim group, also requires a demographic page, like Arab Muslims.--Bazaan (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does NOT attack or slander anyone else-all it does is express the identity of a given group. While it is true that Bengalis are a linguistic group,there is more than sufficient difference among Hindu Bengalis and Muslim Bengalis to warrant a separate discussion along the religious lines. As for any eclectic coverage, I am all for it.Such articles PROMOTE diversity and do not condemn them.Ultimately, wikipedia is about the expression of this diversity of the human experience.I agree with the last comment that there should be a separate article on Bengali Buddhists and Bengali Muslims also.This way we can conserve the unique identities of each such group for the posterity to marvel at. Editing an article is okay but to propose to delete an article on an ethnic group [even if it be a religious subgroup within that group ] is nothing but intolerance and a form of imperialism. ~~ Skylark2008

Yes, the article does not slander or attack. However, we have a long history of edit wars over historically inaccurate and biased undertones, pushed by users such as Mr. Bengali Hindu. But anyways, this can indeed be a wonderful article. As a Bengali, I've always wanted to see our unity in religious diversity reflected. It's something sorely missing in Wikipedia.--Bazaan (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We got so many philosophies right here.. Lol. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article does not articulate about Bengalis adhering to Hinduism as a religious identity. Had it been the case there would have been no issue at all about it. But the article incorrectly portrays Bengalis like us who follow Hindu religion as a separate ethno-linguistic entity different from our Muslim brothers. That's totally unacceptable and for this the article needs to be deleted from Wikipedia for the sake of objectivity and truthfulness. RegardsUnmesh Bangali (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, you seem to visualize Bengali Hindus merely as Bengali speaking people who adheres to Hinduism. If it were so, then there would not have been any difference in the language, food habits, customs and traditions between Bengali Hindus and Bengalis Muslims. West Bengal and Bangladesh would have been in one country. Isn't it? BengaliHindu (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unmesh Bangali, you are confusing petition online with wikipedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bengali Hindus are a distinct ethnic, linguistic and religious group. Those commenting above that Bengali Hindus are only a minority religious group within the Bengali speaking peoples tend to forget that the Bengali speaking population is not a politically united population. Majority of Bengali Hindus reside in India and majority of Bengali Muslims reside in Bangladesh. Not only the religion, but customs, language, history and political aspirations differ greatly between Bengali Hindus of India and Bengali Muslims of Bangladesh. Its not only that Bengali Hindus are different from Bengali Muslims. They are also distinct from Assamese Hindus and other Hindu ethnic groups in India, even though they might speak the same language for e.g. Assamese or Hindi. Ethnicity is not only based on language. If so, why would Rohingyas be a separate ethnic group from Bengali people? Why would Bosniaks be a separate group from Bosnians? BengaliHindu (talk) 10:59, 15 December 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) 00:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. the subject is searchable, verifiable. arguments to delete have no relation to wikipedia policies about deletion and the problems mentioned (if they are valid) may be solved by editing.- Altenmann >t 08:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have not read the article, but have looked into some of its references. I find the topic meets notability criteria, and the article has got some references. There are other articles of similar nature, such as Arab Christians. Logically I see no reason to delete this. I feel the nomination is more based on sentiment than reasoning. However, if the article does contain material that is offensive, that must be deleted.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dwaipayan, but the single dominant creator of the page uses Biased, Questionable & Self-published sources to twist the objectivity in his own opinion's favour which is against Wikipedia Policy. He proclaims parochially that the great rulers of Pala Empire were all Bengali Hindus while anybody with slightest knowledge of Indian History knows that they were actually not only Buddhists but also great propagators of Buddhism. Shame on such deliberate fact twisting ! Regards Naved77 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I started reading the article after your reply. Yes, definitely there are lots of problems. This is the version that I read. I may do some editing, so giving the permanent link of the version.
For example, in the lead, "The Bengali Hindus along with other related ethno-linguistic groups constitute the vast majority of Hindus" It is not clear what are "other related ethno-linguistic minorities". Vague, needs to be removed.
"...and adhere to the Shakta and Vaishnava traditions of their native religion Hinduism." I am not sure if Bengali Hindus adhere only to those two sects.
"During the Sena period the Bengali culture developed into a distinct culture within the Hindu civilization" This is also problematic. What is really meant by Hindu civilization?
"In the subsequent centuries of foreign occupation and struggle for independence, the Bengali Hindu culture remained dormant, only to revive itself in the 19th century in the form of Bengal Renaissance. " Which foreign occupations? Seems British occupation, as it mentions "struggle for independence". Other than British rule, I don't know if any other rulers can be called foreign. There is a long time between Sena dynasty and British rule. Also, "the Bengali Hindu culture remained dormant" I am not sure if that is valid as well. The Bengali Hindu culture, Muslim culture, taken together as "Bengali culture", survived and developed I guess during all those years. Also, "Bengal renaissance" was not merely revival of Bengali Hindu culture, even though majority of the persons involved were Bengali Hindus.
"The migration continued in waves through the fifties and sixties, especially during the genocides of 1950 and 1964." What genocides in 1950 and 1964?
"From the sixties, the Bengali Hindus began to emigrate to the West, mostly to pursue higher studies and later to the Middle East, in search of lucrative careers" Sentence reads as if there was mass immigration, which is not the case. It was pretty much in sync with immigration from many other states of India, and modest, at best.
" In India, Bengali generally refers to Bengali Hindus" Possible, but unlikely and doubtful. I could not access the full text of the article.
"The ‘other’ is usually identified as ‘non-Bengali’, a term that generically refers to the Indian people who are not Bengali speaking, but sometimes specifically used to denote the Hindi speaking population." I did not understand this. What is "the other"?
" Bengali Hindus were a seafaring people" Probably an exaggeration. Needs better reference.
" By the 3rd century B.C.E. they were united into a powerful state, known to the Greeks as Gangaridai, whose military prowess demoralized Alexander from further expedition to the east." Really, military power? Needs ref.
The article does not mention Pala rulers as Hindu.
"The next attack on the society came from the Islamic missionaries" Very doubtful, and also communal in tone.
"during the reign of Alivardi Khan the inhuman taxation and frequent Maratha Empire raids made the life miserable for the ordinary Bengali Hindu people" Ok, agreeable. But one may think, reading this sentence, life became miserable for only Hindus. I seriously doubt that. Life became miserable for common man, whether Hindu or Muslim or any other religion.
"famine of 1770, in which approximately one third of the Bengali Hindu population died of starvation.". Is that stat correct. I sort of remember one third of Bengali population died (not sure).

Anyway, there are probably more. Yes, I agree that there are many prose/data problem in this. Even then, I feel the topic meets notability criteria, and article should be kept.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am reading and editing this article since inception. Once the creator and single dominant editor of the article desperately tried to include Bengalis adherents of other religions i.e. Buddhists, Jains etc as Bengali Hindus which we could amend due to some Wikipedians vigilance. He wrongly incorporated in the article that Bangladesh is an Islamic Republic, in reality which never was. He said that Sylhet is a Hindu Bengali Majority District which it never was. He still says Cachar is a Bengali Hindu majority district where in reality majority of Bengalis of Cachar are still predominantly Muslims. In essence the article still has a communal tone due to this particular editor's adamancy. Such propaganda oriented fact twisting communal hatred evoking article should not remain in Wikipedia. Regards & Thanks Al-minar (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before putting forward your baseless accusations and personal attacks, please get your facts right. Muslim Population by District in Assam] says Cachar has 36% Muslim population.BengaliHindu (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha Ha ! It appears that you are indeed unknowingly supporting my position brother BengaliHindu . Cachar has a Bengali population of around 65 to 70% and rest are Assamese & tribals. If out of this 36% happens to be muslim than how can Cachar be a Bengali Hindu majority district? Come up with simple math brother. BTW, I never did any personal attack, don't be agitated just be polite. Furthermore can you deny you once proclaimed in this article that Sylhet is a Hindu majority district and that Bangladesh is an Islamic Republic which were utterly untrue and the article was corrected against severe negative criticisms? Regards Al-minar (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article has been here for a long time, almost entirely edited by one dominant user - his prolific work is all for one theme, arguably an original research. There are a lot of citations - presented in skewed way. This article tries to establish that Bengali Hindu is a ethno-religious group, while no Bengali has the slightest idea that, "Bengali Hindu" is a different group - something other than "Bengali"s. I am a Bengali, Bangladeshi, Muslim - and in my entire life span I have never heard of such term - other than here. There is absolutely no concept of Bengali Hindu other than that, they are Bengali and they adhere to Hinduism. It is true, there are some occurrences of the phrase is literature, but they never indicated to a different ethnic group. If Bengali Hindu exists as a nation/group/ethnic community or any "thing" then there also exists, Bengali Muslims, Bengali Christians, Bengali Buddhists and so on. As a matter of fact, none exists. So, this entire piece of misleading, twisted, communally toned, alleged original work shall not be a Wikipedia article. --» nafSadh did say 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that no Bengali has the idea that Bengali Hindus are a different group? You, from the perspective of a Bengali Muslim from Bangladesh, might not have heard of the term, however, that that does not mean the non-existence of the group. Google Books has more than 13,000 references to the term. If you care to read them you will realize that the Bengali Hindus have been spoken of as a different group. In that sense Bengali Muslims too are a different group. In Assam, for example, the Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims are considered separate groups. There is nothing communal about it.BengaliHindu (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bengali Hindus are only a religious group within the Bengali peoples. It is not an individual ethnic group. Further explaining the logic is Bengali Christian redirects to Christianity in Bangladesh and we already have article on Hinduism in West Bengal and Hinduism in Bangladesh and Bengali culture and this article is made up of content from this three. Bengali Hindus are identified as Hindus only - it is not a specific caste or sect. I have myself spent three decades of my life in West Bengal and as rightly sadi by nafSadh never heard of such term. Bengali people who follow Hinduism generally identify themself as Kayastha, Baidya, etc, which are their caste identities. This article is WP:OR, POV and misleading article. -Jethwarp (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other problematic article worth deletion are Bengali Hindu wedding unreferenced when we already have Bengali wedding and Bengali Hindu diaspora. We do not have articles like Gujarati diaspora, Marathi diaspora, Bihari diaspora. Even Bihari Muslims article should be deleted going by same logic. Going by the same logic I have also nominated Surti Muslims for deletion today. -Jethwarp (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article clearly passes WP:GNG and is clearly verifiable .There is substantial Historical and scholarly research which clearly see Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims as separate communities particularly after 1905 political division even if one is not going before that. The Partition of Bengal which was on religious lines principally Bengali Hindu and Bengali Muslim which is a very major event in Indian history namely Partition of Bengal (1905) and Partition of Bengal (1947) into what is now Bangladesh and West Bengal and even the borders were drawn on religious lines. This is clearly not Original research and whether WP:otherstuffexists or not is not a reason for inclusion or deletion. Delete objection to the piece rests upon not notability or what policy they want to be the article to be deleted but rather on factual accuracy, which is an editing matter . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of notability I would entertain arguments that this article is so misleading that it should be blown up because some people commenting are suggesting as much, but actually, I think that there is enough good information here to pass any kind of deletion review. The article has a lot of problems, but I find that it does present sources which establish Bengali Hindus as a distinct people who are not only Hindus, not only Bengalis, and not a mere intersection between Hindus and Bengalis. The Partition of India did a lot to establish this group as distinct and for the purposes of Wikipedia review, resulted in the creation of many books and academic papers on the concept and identity of Bengali Hindus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Pharaoh 101.62.56.215 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The partition of India or Bengal took place on religious line. It took place also in western front in Punjab but we do not have articles like Punjabi Muslims and Punjabi Hindu redirects to Hinduism in Punjab. Bengali Christian also redirects to Christianity in Bangladesh. Show me the sources from Anthropological Survey of India or Government of India websites or any other author on anthropology who mentions Bengali Hindus as separate caste. As per my earlier comment also we already articles of Hinduism in West Bengal and Hinduism in Bangladesh. Nor is there anything like Bengali Muslim, if you say partition took place between Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims - Jethwarp (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in West Bengal and Hinduism in Bangladesh are not exact same as Bengali Hindus. This is because, there are sizeable non-Bengali Hindu population (including tribals) in West Bengal and non-negligible tribal Hindu population in Bangladesh. Further the Bengali Hindus are also present in sizeable numbers in Assam, Tripura and other Indian states where there are other non-Bengali Hindu groups as well. Most importantly, the article is about the people and not the religion. The Bengali Hindus are not just a religious denomination, sect or caste. They are a group.BengaliHindu (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this article in International Journal of Anthropology. The study has been done only on Bengali Hindus as a group. You can find many similar articles. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep ultimately what matters is not people's opinions on whether this is truly an ethnic group or just an invented grouping, it passes GNG with multiple sources discussing this as a group. There are clearly issues with the article but deletion is not the solution.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Obi-Wan Kenobi, As I said earlier the article is misleading because it portrays Bengali Hindus as a different ethnicity(note: not different religious or cultural group) which is violating Wikipedia policy because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. This article is orchestrating a propaganda which is highly objectionable and not reflecting majority's view. So it only deserves deletion. Regards Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the creator and single most dominant editor of this article is ill motivated by his desire to create division between the ethnic Bengalis. Politically Bengalis may be divided between Bangladesh & India, nationality wise they may be Indian or Bangladeshis, religion wise they may be Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist or even atheist , but ethnically they are one and only Bengali. The article definitely has a tone which denounces this reality by proclaiming Bengali Hindus as a different ethnic group than Bengali Muslims or Bengali Christians. Even after series of edits by many the article is still not devoid of communal fact twisting efforts. Murad67 (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) I am changing my original position, which was out of a desire to see the cultural coverage of religion in Bengal. In retrospect, I believe that can rather be better covered in articles such as Hinduism in Bengal or Islam in Bengal, similar to Christianity in China or Islam in Ethiopia (you don’t have articles on Chinese Christians or Ethiopian Muslims). It is certainly wrong to claim that Bengali Hindus are an ethnicity. Bengalis (Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and Christians alike) have one of the most homogeneous cultures in the world. Wikipedia should not lose itself to religious nationalist thugs.--Bazaan (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following scholars have considered the Bengali Hindus as an ethnic group.

Tapan Raychaudhuri, Professor Emeritus at St. Anthony's College, Oxford, UK in his article Mother of the universe, Motherland.
Mohammad Mozammel Huq of Rajshahi University in his paper published in the Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research.
Sanghamitra Niyogi, professor of Sociology at University of California in her paper Immigrant Sub-National Ethnicity: Bengali-Hindus and Punjabi-Sikhs in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I'll keep on adding to the list of 'religious nationalist thugs'. It is a really nice epithet given by our fellow Wikipedian. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To some of the users here, stop using partition as an excuse. Both Bangladesh and West Bengal are secular entities. And for those of you who seem to know little historical detail, the 1905 Partition of Bengal was not based on religious lines, but on administrative purposes, as according to the British themselves.

Not a single mainstream authority in India or Bangladesh recognizes these preposterous claims. If Wikipedia is going to consider every god damn piece of sectarian scholarship as notable, then the encyclopaedia does become very cheap.--Bazaan (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see any reliable source that says Bengali Hindus are ethnically distinct from Bengali Muslims, Buddhists or Christians. Besides, I fail to understand the logic behind using Partition of India as a reason to distinct the Bengali Hindus from Bengali adherents of other religions. Despite the partition, there are many Bengali Hindus living in Bangladesh as well as many Bengali Muslims living in West Bengal, going through the same cultural and social life as their other fellow countrymen, which shows they are ethnically same. Also, the partition had the same effect on the Punjab region as that of Bengal, yet we don't see any articles like Punjabi Sikhs, Punjabi Muslims or Punjabi Hindus. Merging the contents with Bengali people and Hinduism in Bangladesh can also be a good option. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. 103.242.197.12 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Participation in deletion related discussion from unregistered users are not accepatable by Wikipedia policy. Hence such participation is to be ignored. RegardsHossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable and verifiable.

Bengali Hindus are a distinct socio-religious group dominating the Indian state oF West B engal and also having significant presence in Assam, Tripura & Jharkhand and also some provinces of Bangladesh. Bengali muslims are basically converts from this group still maintaining some traditions linking them to their Hindu heritage.Unknown.citizen12 (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research[edit]

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

This article was deleted as a PRDO. The reason was " I have, at present, found no sources to verify that this organisation is notable. It has a web site, but Google News (for example) has trouble identifying reliable sources that discuss the organisation. There are primary sources, but, if this organisation has notability it would, surely, feature in news items. I'm happy to be proven to be incorrect, and that sources exist that I haven't been able to find, so I am choosing the PROD mechanism as a slow burn deletion route that allows article improvement to meet our need for verification of notability." The PROD was uncontested.

The article has now been returned to main article space at user request. Since this is, effectively, a contested PROD, I am bringing it to AfD under the same rationale. Userfying the article would be an acceptable outcome. Fiddle Faddle 11:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:23, 9 December 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) 00:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion. Found a couple mentions of it in books/journal articles, e.g. nih.gov pubmed link, but they turned out to be written by one of the organization's principals (M.T. Wright) or about promotional-sounding efforts by Wright or the organization. The word "for" in the article should probably be "on", but neither turned up anything noteworthy. Agyle (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shaiju Mathew. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Pocketful Of Sunshine[edit]

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

Article about an upcoming book. Fails WP:BKCRIT and WP:CRYSTAL. - Mr X 13:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:27, 9 December 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) 00:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaiju Mathew. I can't find anything to show that this book passes notability guidelines. For that matter, the author's article is looking a little suspect as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the coverage is on his debut book's article, so I'm thinking I'll merge all of the book info from both articles into his and redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking the author's page is of dubious notability. He's received a little coverage over his first book, but not very much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'd support keeping the author article. -- GreenC 06:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As nominator, I support redirect based on the reasons articulated above. - Mr X 11:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Addams[edit]

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

Fails even the lax standards of WP:PORNBIO, since scene nominations are excluded by the guideline text and "MILF" category nominations have been repeatedly rejected by prior AFD and DRV determinations as falling below the well-known/significant standard. Fails the GNG, no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits, while the pop-culture namedrops are trivial, not the necessary substantive coverage. Just another porn performer BLP without reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The community is quite clear that BLPs require reliable sourcing and that we cannot host inadequately sourced BLPs. PORNBIO is no longer widely accepted because it doesn't meet this standard and this doesn't even meet that lax standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, if MILF categories were truly rejected by the community, it would mention something about it in PORNBIO. The only exclusions that are listed are scene-related categories and ensemble categories alone. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO. The AVN and XBIZ Awards are both well-known and significant awards and PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories. Consensus hasn't determined that MILF performer awards aren't notable, in fact, I think #2 of PORNBIO reinforces this categories importance. #2 of PORNBIO states "has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", in this case, MILF pornography. The AVN and XBIZ MILF categories have no more than 15 nominees each year, and it's usually the same performers over and over again. Out of perhaps hundreds or even thousands of older female performers in the entire industry active in the MILF genre, being one of the 15 each year to be nominated is evidence that this performer has made unique contributions to this specific pornographic genre, especially if they are nominated more than once and by different ceremonies. And also, let me remind you all that PORNBIO isn't defunct and while it may be tagged as disputed, this discussion has been inactive for two months. PORNBIO is a valid guideline and Ava Addams passes it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure thats the joy of WP:PORNBIO! An article "Fails the GNG, has no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits, while the pop-culture namedrops are trivial, not the necessary substantive coverage." and be "Just another porn performer BLP without reliably sourced biographical content". I agree its currently too lax but at the moment she passes. Finnegas (talk) 20:44, 11 December 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) 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 02:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loh Teo Kwong[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. A high rank is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The fact that he is the youngest person (and first non-Korean) to receive a 9th dan and as a twice European champion from the WTF certainly seems to indicate some degree of notability. Might as well go delete since I can't find anymore sources. YoungIreland (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above points, properly referenced, should be added to the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have added another neutral reference relating to him being the first non-Korean. YoungIreland(talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about one for twice European champion.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a neutral source on that will be a bit more difficult and will take time. YoungIreland(talk) 22:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even without references I would put that information along with the years into the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.YoungIreland(talk) 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim of winning back to back European titles needs to be sourced or removed. I have some issues with the sources currently in the article because they aren't enough to meet WP:GNG and his rank is irrelevant for notability purposes. Here are my comments on the 6 sources:

1. He's not mentioned on the web page that's linked to.

2. Passing mention as running his organization's tournament.

3. His bio at his club's website.

4. Passing mention that he visited a particular club.

5. Blog where anyone can post.

6. Brief interview with local paper. Papaursa (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails MANOTE and sources aren't enough to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:22, 13 December 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) 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep There are good sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I'll just go for delete then if there are no good reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tell me what those good sources are? The ones mentioned in the article certainly don't qualify as significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lack of significant coverage and there's nothing to support claims of back-to-back European championships. If he did win some titles in 1979 and 1980, they weren't from the WTF. The WTF didn't hold a European championship in 1979 and he's not even listed as a medalist in the 1980 results [32]. Papaursa (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete European Champion twice in 1979 and 1980: would be notable but there are no reliable references. jmcw (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jmcw37--fails GNG and MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Murray Rothbard. Courcelles 20:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart Was a Red[edit]

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

Though there is no AfD category for plays/musicals, Mozart was a Red utterly fails to meet the general notability criteria at WP:GNG. There is virtually no independent RS discussion of this play (with perhaps one exception: anarcho-capitalist Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism mentions the play in his biographical discussion of its author, Murray Rothbard) and no evidence that it has contributed to discourse, either popular or academic, on aesthetics or the arts. That this play -- which was performed once at a fringe political Institute -- has a WP entry while many broadway hits from 10-20 years ago don't, is simply absurd. Whether it should simply be deleted or merged into the Rothbard article is an open question, but I tend to think this content would be a superfluous addition to the Rothbard page, which already has a discussion of his break with Ayn Rand and a brief mention of the play. Steeletrap (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Doherty book noted above calls this "a libertarian movement samizdat classic"; other book references place this work in the context of Rothbard's critique of Rand [33] and his efforts "to turn fellow libertarians against" her [34] and one calls it a "magnum opus" [35]. Our understanding of Rothbard is better with than without this content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:48, 9 December 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) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about this and never published or discussed outside the Author's circle. It can go in his biography if RS establishes its significance for that context. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Murray Rothbard (author). I can't find much significant coverage, and it doesn't appear to have received any critical consideration as a work of literature or outside of the libertarian right. But Rothbard is an important thinker, and it does have coverage in libertarian sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Rothbard's article, the mentions above are to brief for it to have a standalone article. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colapeninsula. This is notable for Rothbard, but not for Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Murray Rothbard is what I supported on the article talk page a while back, and it still makes sense. There isn't enough source material for this to be independently notable, but there is enough WP:RS information to allow to be discussed in the article about Rothbard. --RL0919 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Murray Rothbard - unpublished work with low amounts of coverage should be directed to the author. If it has some noteworthiness it can be mentioned there. Mkdw ^talk 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Venkata Krishnan Temple[edit]

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

Article about a temple with only a youtube video as a reference. Google searches find very little and nothing to show any WP:notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 December 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) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion. Struggled to find more info on the temple, and found none. There was more on a temple of same/similar name(s) in Tempe, Arizona. Article is confusing nearly to the point of meaninglessness. Could not find English-language sources suggesting the temple is noteworthy, nor did the temple's own website provide even primary source info. Agyle (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks the third party verifiable sources needed to sustain notability. That said I did a search for myself and there is really only the main website and a Youtube channel. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 15:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 20:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trento-Bondone Hill Climb[edit]

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

The topic appears to be non-notable. I cannot find any mention of the topic in Google News and only insignificant mentions at Google Books. At present, the article cites only a single, primary source. The Trento-Bondone Hill Climb is said to be part of the European Hill Climb Championship which has zero citations. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I don't think you can find any of these on Google News, since hillclimbing is a niche sport. Still, Trento-Bondone is an official track of the European Hill Climb Championship. You can find the official site of the FIA inside the article.--Enok (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Enok is the article creator who I commend for their contributions to the pedia. However, I'm also hopeful we will hear from some uninvolved editors as well. Thank you to all for your participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 December 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) 00:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - It's a hillclimb track used in an FIA sanctioned continental event. Evidence is really not hard to find;. Given that this is fairly high up on a generic Google search, I'm questioning whether WP:BEFORE was really adhered to; given that the first route, and the route that turns up the most sources, which is to simply Google it, was clearly not followed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- That appears to be a primary source. I don't see how it establishes notability for a stand alone article. Has it ever received any news coverage of any kind?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, I think you're missing the point entirely. Yes, the source is primary, but it also shows that this is a track used for an FIA-sanctioned continental-level event - far more than is generally required for notability. If you're not going to accept that standard procedure, which I can only assume is due to a lack of motor racing knowledge, then things such as [36] exist (which is quite in-depth, and is definitely a WP:RS); there's more here - indeed, a Google Books search pulls up 184 results across 24 books, almost all of which are at least passing mentions. We're not talking some obscure track that was used once here, but one that has been used at continental and even international level going back to at least the 1960s. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke, My apologies, I probably didn't make my self clear so I'll be more specific. WP has guidelines for notability and the sources you have provided unfortunately don't meet the guideline. WP:EVENT specifies "an event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable"......."The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)." So far you've provided a listing in a primary source [37] and a passing mention in a motoring magazine article about road N45. [38] You have mentioned a Google search result, however WP:HITS says: A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. In my initial posting I admitted that the event can be found in a number of books but only as a listing or one line mention as seen on this Google search page. So in-depth coverage has not been demonstrated and I don't see how the TB Hillclimb meets the WP:EVENT's requirement for significant, in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. I understand your enthusiasm for the topic, and I'm happy to relent if appropriate sources can be found, but so far I'm just not seeing it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try and patronize me as if I was a new editor with no idea how Wikipedia works. The Motoring.com.au source is far from a passing mention; have you even bothered reading it? There are several paragraphs dedicated to just this one hillclimb. The FIA source was never presented as anything other than proof of what the track is - something used in a FIA-sanctioned continental event. That is immediately enough for notability; the fact that an Australian motoring magazine opted to go all the way to Italy, and included it in their rosta of things to drive, also says a lot. It's also featured on a few racing games, but that won't convince you either, obviously. There's more than a passing mention here, and there are also things such as [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]... Like I said, notability is not just slightly met, but smashed with flying colours. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Took a few minutes to find a ref written in English but added a short description of the course and a citation. Time, Newsweek and the Economist don't cover hill climbs but the course and annual race are covered in motoring and racing periodicals. The article is a stub and needs TLC from an editor interested in motor sports but WP:UGLY isn't a reason to delete. The notability of the climb and course appear well documented in continental motor sports journals and websites. This course is a historic venue used since 1925. Finding more sources in English or translating non-English sources will take time and effort. Google translate doesn't do well translating motor sports terminology so humans familiar with auto racing jargon will be needed to do adequate translations. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 04:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully intend, when this AfD closes, to go and do some work on it. I have a (very) limited knowledge of Italian, which may or may not help - I am definitely familiar with a lot of English auto racing jargon though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pars pro toto principle[edit]

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

Article has relied on a single reference for months now. This probably belongs on Wiktionary rather than here per WP:NOTDIC. Perhaps we could create a soft redirect. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 10 December 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) 00:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the redirect as suggested. It is simply a phrase. – S. Rich (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the already-existing pars pro toto where this additional, distinct use can be briefly explained. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Sina Medical College[edit]

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

Not notable? (This page was a failed submission in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/..., but it had to be history-merged.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree granting colleges and universities are generally considered notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I believe that medical schools should have articles separate from their parent universities, but if others disagree in this case, the article could be merged and redirected to University of Dhaka. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 10 December 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) 00:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a genuine, degree-granting college. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aruğ (Arı)[edit]

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

Non-English dictionary definition. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (pending verification): If this were, in fact, merely a non-English term for "spirits" it would be a dictionary definition; however, the article implies that "Aruğ" are a type of spirit, presumably specific to the relevant culture's mythology. If the cited source supports this, then keep. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to delete; see my reasoning below (unless reliable sources are found). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: examining the source (p. 140), with the help of Google Translate, I see that I am partially correct—"Aruğ" are supposed to be a type of benevolent spirit; however, the source seems self-published and cites its sources unusually, and I can't find any other sources. (Then again, I don't know Turkish.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:59, 10 December 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) 00:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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