Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 December	18 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. Courcelles 23:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zorobabel Moreira[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. As for his BJJ accomplishments, there's no record of him placing at any IBJJF world tournament. The Brazilian national chmapionship referred to in one article turns out to have been for 17 year old green belts, which isn't close to meeting WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. The BJJ championships would give me pause but as stated above - no corroboration.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search at the IBJJF website found the same thing as Papaursa stated--no world championship at any level and only a green belt youth national championship. He clearly doesn't meet NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 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 23:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Smith (fighter)[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. His BJJ also fails to meet WP:MANOTE since the highest belt level he reached was purple. Papaursa (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far from notable MMA fighter.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 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 23:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact microscope[edit]

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

Unclear that this is an actual term. Few edits, only one link from another article, created by same long-idle user as recently-deleted Impact spectrometer. Dan Griscom (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 101.119.15.141 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 101.119.15.141 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact spectrometer, in which this article was temporarily included. -- 101.119.15.141 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence that the device even exists. Quantumobserver (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Could not find any reliable sources on the topic. TCMemoire (talk) 20:10, 24 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 Speedily deleted. No need to keep this around for seven days. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol by Samuel[edit]

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

Essentially a troll article. Aclany (talk) 23:33, 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. Courcelles 23:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Editor[edit]

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

The official web site has been taken over by a squatter and there is a complaint on the page that the topic may not be notable - since 2009. In these four years, it has evidently become less notable, not moreso. ke4roh (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ref provided from summer of code show that the software exists, but does not establish notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources to support notability. The problem is that there is a blog by an editor of the Washington Free Beacon that is absorbing more of the hits. The "official website" appears to now be a news source for American health insurance, so the product doesn't seem to exist any longer either, which means that it won't become more important over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 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 speedy deleted by admin Mike Rosoft as a hoax. (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 22:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mexico[edit]

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

Article on a fictional character that was probably made up by the author, as the character of "Captain Mexico" as described in the article is never mentioned by any reliable sources. Aclany (talk) 19:50, 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. Courcelles 23:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nectar Online Media[edit]

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

Non-notable. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The only independent ref is http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-how-to-measure-twitter-influence-2013-2 which has no in depth coverage of the company. Only significant contributor to the article is an SPA with their userpage redirecting to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a rather clear WP:SPA WP:COI by User:NectarOM14, with not only their userpage redirecting to the article but their user talk page was also redirecting to the article talk page. As to the substance and the key question of notability, I am not finding any. There is some brief coverage of the study that they co-sponsored in December 2012, which then got them that "in a recent survey" coverage two months later. But nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Google search I just ran returned lots of press releases and blogs, none of which satisfy WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in RS with the exception of incidental mentions and in relation to the above-mentioned survey. A search did not turn up significant RS coverage. As above, created by a WP:SPA as likely spam/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 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. Courcelles 23:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mardom rastar an[edit]

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

This movie fails Notability guidelines. Only sources found in Google search are Facebbok and some blogs. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 02:06, 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. Courcelles 23:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Anderson[edit]

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

Totally lacks notability per WP:PROF, and the general WP criteria for notability. He has virtually no mainstream academic publications, and he's rarely cited by independent, mainstream sources of any sort; his mentions are largely confined to fringe, ideological sites (LewRockwell.com, Mises.org) with which he is affiliated. Steeletrap (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources no citations, and seems to dwell almost exclusively within the Mises Institute circle and publications. We need to see multiple contributions, interactions, or recognition outside of his colleagues and affiliates. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 17 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 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to his Google scholar profile he wrote an article in 1986 that has 168 citations, his total number of citations is 307 and he has an h-index of 7. I don't think this qualifies him as a highly cited/influential scholar per WP:PROF #1. Nor does he seem to qualify per the other Prof criterias (named chair, editor of important journal, received prestigious award etc) or to have received wide coverage that would make him notable per WP:GNG. Iselilja (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Iselilja: can you explain the h-index please? Something like a link or an explanation of what are good v. bad numbers? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got the question at my talk page too, so I answered there. Iselilja (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 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 23:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Watson[edit]

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

Not seeing any actual notability, none of the sources are of any value Jac16888 ^Talk 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creating editor was several times advised (by way of tags) of issues with the article and their only response (other than adding some primary sources) has been to remove the tags. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you just said the same thing I said. --Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:58, 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. Sandstein 11:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Planet Money episodes[edit]

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

Article fails in its purpose, as: 1. Article has rarely been updated, most recently in August of 2013. That means four months of episodes have not been added to this list of episodes. 2. Many early episodes feature no meaningful description; the descriptions that are entered have been ripped straight from the RSS feed, violating copyright. 3. While the podcast itself is certainly notable, and deserves its entry, a list of episodes is certainly not. Jedzz (talk) 11:06, 16 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 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:LISTPURP as an episode list for a non-fiction series (even if this were broadcast instead of merely podcast) is excessive and unnecessary detail for our coverage of that series. So while I concur with the nominator's judgment, their reasoning is incorrect, as #1 & 2 are grounds for further editing and cleanup, not deletion, and re: #3 it is not meaningful to say "a list of episodes is...not [notable]". postdlf (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be some kind of odd automated scrape of the show's RSS feed by a questionable account as seen here. I'd delete more based on that than anything else because of COPYVIO, and usually I'm not inclined to keep information for a non-fiction show which is just 'we talk about what happened this week' over and over again. Nate • (chatter) 20:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Warburton[edit]

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

Subject appears to still fail our WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This non-notable author was non-notable in 2011, as explained incisively at that time by MelanieN, and remains non-notable in the final days of 2013. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (striking Delete, see below) Well, well. Another SPA-written stub about this person. This time, in addition to his non-notable self-published books, he has co-written (which probably means ghost-written) a book with Dennis Rodman. That book did attract some mainstream notice, but all of the coverage was about super-celeb Rodman, with at best a passing mention of Warburton. Notability is not inherited, and Warburton does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AUTHOR allows for co-authors. It says "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work .. that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (emphasis added). A ghost writer is usually afforded the same notability as the book subject. I have not researched this particular book to see how notable it is but co-author is valid grounds for arguing for notability. The reviews don't need to mention the author, CREATIVE is based on reviews of works, not the artist personally (GNG is about the person). -- GreenC 21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable ghost writer per AUTHOR (comment above). Some coverage of Dennis the Wild Bull: NY Daily News, NESN, MLive, CBS Chicago, Yahoo Sports, Time magazine, USA Today, Sports Illustrated, CTV News, NBC Sports. As a ghost writer he will naturally not be mentioned in the sources but the sources cover the work which is what CREATIVE #3 is about, reviews of the works of which he is a co-creator. -- GreenC 21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unaware of the "co-creator" loophole in the WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines, and I don't agree with it. It apparently provides that even the most obscure ghostwriter will become "notable" if they happen to hook up with a famous person - and thus co-produce something which receives coverage because of the famous person's involvement. Looks like WP:INHERITED to me. A guideline is a guideline and presumably was based on consensus, so I am striking my "delete" !vote above; however, I can't bring myself to !vote "keep" for a subject I still regard as non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though just writing for a famous person isn't enough, need multiple reviews in reliable sources, not all of Rodman's books have good coverage but Dennis the Wild Bull is exceptional. It's not really a loophole, books are a type of creative work like movies and plays that include multiple people who played a significant role. Usually books are single-authored but in some cases multiple people played a significant role. A book illustrator would be another example if the book had a lot of illustrations. -- GreenC 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read all of the links above, except one that I couldn't reach, and not a single one is a review of the book, or even indicates that the writer was holding a physical copy of the book. Many were published before the book's release. One is a home town paper's profile of the illustrator, in the vein of "local boy makes good". Several mention lack of information about the content, focus on the cover art, the brief summary on the book's website and quote Rodman's interviews mentioning the book. This is all coverage, which one calls "Internet buzz" about a celebrity book event, all focused on the "bad boy writes kid's book" hook. Rodman is notable. The book, lacking actual reviews, isn't in my judgment. And neither is the co-author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR says "independent periodical articles or reviews". -- GreenC 20:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we need to conclude that the book is significant or important. That celebrity buzz is very thin gruel for that claim, since I see zero evidence that any of those writers actually read the book, and clear evidence that most of them didn't. It is vapor coverage, at least regarding the book itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodman has published other books that didn't get this attention. Other celebrity authors publish books that don't get this kind of attention. It's more than "buzz" it's unusual coverage. The sources contain plot outlines - it's a children's picture book so not much else to say - they are all headlined about the book, it's not vapor. Anyway we are not limited to formal reviews only - the notability guidelines are more generous. -- GreenC 21:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodman has published other books that didn't get this attention. Actually Rodman's best known book, Bad As I Wanna Be, was a best seller - but its ghost writer, Tim Keown, doesn't have a Wikipedia article. The coverage of the current book actually IS "buzz", and as Cullen noted, all of it is a variation on "bad boy writes children's book". None of the buzz is about the CONTENT of the book, which is what Warburton contributed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we need to look into an article for Tim Keown, Wikipedia has gaps of coverage. I'm not sure what "buzz" means, it's a pejorative term without clear definition, but we know what notable means ("significant coverage in reliable sources"). All of these are reliable sources and they are headlined about the book, and contain enough material to write an article about the book (WP:WHYN). Although the sources contain the narrative "bad boy writes book", they also contain information about the book. -- GreenC 17:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty to be said about children's picture books that are actually notable: they are reviewed, win awards, and are described in books about children's literature. And this co-author fails WP:GNG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 21 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) 18:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear that a subject is notable if it meets the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. You don't have to meet both. He meets WP:AUTHOR. A book is Wikipedia notable based on coverage it receives, and he did play a role in creating somethings that would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't bring myself to agree with the assertion made above that someone who is not widely acknowledged as the author of a particular work can gain notability just from being involved. Using this logic being the cameraman of a successful film would catapult one to notability. As far as I can see there is no substantial sources for this BLP and I think it ought to be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It's not just "being involved" you are right, it's a significant role. For movies it's typically director, producer, writer(s) and lead actors. -- GreenC 16:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not a ghost writer. Their name is on all the books they have written alone or with others. Dream Focus 16:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, IMHO the subject could even pass the letter of WP:AUTHOR but passing a SNG is not a guarantee that a subject should be included in our encyclopedia. Here we have zero chance of passing GNG and even WP:AUTHOR is met in a very borderline way. Not enough in my view. Cavarrone 16:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, you have to pass either the WP:GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. There is more than one way to prove something is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Dream Focus 16:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and Wikipedia:Notability (people) is also quite clear when it says " meeting one or more (additional criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included". I'm not against SNGs, but SNGs are not the "Sacred Tables of the Law". Here the claim of notability is so thin, even under WP:AUTHOR, that IMHO (and in several others opinions, too) does not justify an article. Cavarrone 17:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books in which he has participated are in essentially zero libraries, according to worldcat. The most I can find for any of them are 4, for Dennis the Wild Bull. The coauthorship issue is therefore irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable author, and no reliable sources discuss Warburton, himself, in any depth. I'm very concerned that keeping this would set a precedent by which one can attempt to claim notability through association with a celebrity, an argument that is traditionally rejected (see WP:NOTINHERITED. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 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. Following a rewrite by Elonka, all opinions are to keep the article, so I must assume that the earlier opinions are mostly superseded. (This was initially closed as "no consensus", and then changed to "keep" after a request on my talk page.) Sandstein 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Thieme[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG, furthermore the paucity of sources associated with this individual suggest that nothing in this article would survive a strict reading of WP:BLP. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article at the time of this nomination was in a very different state[1] than it is now. As of 12 December it has been completely rewritten, and many new sources have been added.[2] --El on ka 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely a WP:VANITY page. jps (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. The article, in its current form, is not especially good, consisting of little more than a history of Thieme's past speaking engagements. But anyone who catches a video of his presentation at DEFCON 19 (as I did) will certainly wonder who this person is, and will search for more information. This article is at least a start. It does contain some useful biographical material. None of it seems at all controversial, even if it isn't well sourced. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. We really need sources. Msnicki (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've heard him speak at technology conferences, and he's definitely influential, and notable within his field. He lectures in a wide variety of venues, is published, and more importantly, is cited in multiple sources.[3] The Wikipedia article is definitely in need of cleanup and better sourcing, but that's not what AfD is for. On a quick Google search, it's clear that the sources are available though.[4][5][6] --El on ka 22:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced your second cite is a reliable source and your third one isn't a source at all, it's just a Google search. But your first citation to the newspaper article is helpful. If you've got a second source as good as that one, satisfying the requirement for multiple sources, that would cause me to change my !vote. Msnicki (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, how about this one?[7] There also appear to be some other (third-party) sources listed at his website. I haven't reviewed them in detail, but here's a link.[8] His bio (granted, a primary source, but much better written than the Wikipedia article) also does help to imply that there's a case for notability here, and refers to a variety of other third-party sources.[9] --El on ka 14:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not as good. The interviews simply don't count. They're all primary. The first one, the newspaper article on the religion page, is helpful but it's just reporting local news, which we don't usually accept for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're talking apples and oranges a bit. One question is whether the subject is notable. The other question is whether there exists sufficient sourced information to write about the subject. Interviews are primary sources for the information about the subject, true, but the interview as a whole is a secondary source, which counts towards notability. See WP:ALLPRIMARY. For example, if someone were interviewed multiple times on NPR or CNN, that would count towards notability. The statements by the subject would be primary source, but the statements by the interviewer are secondary source. The interviewee is not self-promoting themselves by being interviewed (unless of course they're interviewing themselves). For example, here's another source:[10] It's an interview, yes, but the statements by the interviewer at the top are secondary source. --El on ka 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The only concern at AfD is notability. Everything else is a content issue for the article talk page. The essence of notability is that other people not connected with the subject take note of it and publish their own thoughts about it in reliable independent sources, sources with reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. You simply make yourself notable just by your own acts. It wouldn't matter if the subject appeared six times a day on both networks for a year. Unless and until someone takes note, it just doesn't count. Underlying this is the simple observation that if a subject really is notable, e.g., because they're always on TV, sooner or later those sources will appear and then we can have an article on that topic. Msnicki (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Well even though WP:NOTCLEANUP applies, I guess I'll have to re-write the article to prove that yes, the subject is notable. I'm working on expansion now, will post a comment here when I'm done. --El on ka 14:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely marginal notability; two local newspaper stories and a resume-like list of speaking engagements. Maybe he will someday, but he does not yet meet criteria for WP:AUTHOR. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've overhauled the article, rewriting it quite a bit, expanding the lead, and adding a variety of sources. There's definitely more that can be done, but I think the article makes a much better case now for the notability of the subject. --El on ka 16:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some of the sources are of a promotional nature (interviews, speaking announcements) but some are independent and reliable. -- GreenC 08:46, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the sources are marginal, but there are enough to qualify for WP:GNG, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles in the Milwaukee Sentinel and USA Today are in my view independent and substantial enough to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are enough legitimate sources to cover GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 05:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Kicinski[edit]

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

Having been deleted at AFD1 this was brought to DRV as new sources had been found. Additionally it was noted that the delete votes were before the article had been improved.

For the sake of simplicty, the DRV is here and the new sources are below.

http://www.oregonlive.com/foodday/index.ssf/2011/07with_a_nut_crust_mascarpone_be.html
http://tbo.com/dining/dunedin-author-offers-recipes-for-gluten-free-goodies-243413
http://www.northjersey.com/food_dining/051811_In_Your_Kitchen_Salted_Peanut_Caramel_Brownies.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/dining/gluten-free-dishes-become-a-lot-more-tempting.html?_r=0
http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/a-guide-to-gluten-free-eating/
http://dunedin.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/dunedin-womans-cookbook-features-gluten-free-desserts

As the DRV closer I am neutral. Please note that I am a Coeliac but I closed this as it was hanging around the outcome was incontrovertible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the additional references confirm that this subject is notable and has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help with this, I think I'm now becoming more familiar with the process and how it all works on Wikipedia. I added the sources that are listed above and I changed a couple details here and there. I was wondering if some of you would be willing to look at the page and let me know if there are specific areas that need to be edited. The original text I had was very promotional sounding, I realize that now when comparing it to the current page. I don't feel that the language is too promotional sounding any more, but you guys have been doing this a lot longer than I have so I'd greatly appreciate your opinions on what else needs editing. And since I added the sources that were discussed in the DRV, can I assume that area of the article is up to standard? Please let me know your input, meanwhile I'll read the article again and do more research to see if there are any other details I can add/change. Thanks! --M.Renae (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (original nominator). Far too close to being hard-working promotional material, rather than truly independent notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Those sources are clearly sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: POV aside, WP:GNG established by multiple sources. I sure wish Nook and Amazon weren't in the article as sources, though. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove Amazon and Nook as sources if you guys recommend that. I was using it only to show proof of the eBooks. There aren't book reviews, etc. that I can show elsewhere except the reviews on Nook and Amazon, otherwise I would have used different sources for that. Let me know what you all think. Also, Andy mentioned it still sounds promotional, can I get some specifics, is it an overall tone or certain sections of the article? Does anyone else have comments/suggestions about this? Thanks again all of you for helping me with this. --M.Renae (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Aside from passing GNG, POV complains still stand. More participants, policy-based arguments as well as improving NPOV of the article are appreciated.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alex^{discussion ★} 02:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been relisted to? And can anyone give me some ideas of which parts are too promotional sounding or not in NPOV? Thank you, --M.Renae (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been re-listed here. In other words, it was not closed, but discussion is allowed to continue for another week. I must admit I'm not clear about Aleksa's rationale. The consensus appears to be it passes GNG, and POV is not a valid reason in and of itself for article deletion, unless the article is so purely promotional one would need to start completely over to attain any semblance of balance. I don't think this article is anywhere close to that. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I honestly haven't received too much feedback from people on what needs to be changed in regards to any promotional slant on the article. I am more than willing to change things if people suggest it, it's just that I have looked at the article quite a few times and can't seem to find any areas that I personally think are too promotional. I would need outside sources to sort of guide me on that, to give me a different perspective. Should I wait for more people to comment before trying to edit it any further? Thanks again, --M.Renae (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment would be the article spends too much time on non-notable activities, as an example how about the sentence "She has also spoke at libraries in her community, such as Dunedin Public Library and Clearwater Public Library". This sentence isn't sourced, and the activity isn't notable, it just gives the impression "look what a great person our beloved article subject is!" without outright saying so. Have there been any critical reviews of her work? Not necessarily critical in the negative sense, but something objective regarding her ideas and processes. It would help balance the article. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. I removed that sentence and I'm going to go back through and look for any other sentences that are similar in mentioning non-notable activities. I'm not aware of any reviews like that except the book reviews which are already included as sources for the article. I've been through a few google searches, but I'll continue to keep an eye out for stuff like that. --M.Renae (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few more changes to the article, I deleted Amazon and Nook as references, reworded some things for simplicity, etc. If anyone has any feedback or updates to give me on this please let me know. Thank you, --M.Renae (talk) 15:06, 17 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) 17:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw this article at DRV when it was being improved and more now seems to have been done. It looks to me that WP:GNG has been met. It still has a promotional tone to it but that is not a sufficient reason for deletion because there is also entirely suitable content. Thincat (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears WP:GNG now. Needs some work, but nothing requiring it be deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 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 Closed and Withdrawn New information come to light and the nominator ahas withdrawn this. Additionally with the page move its a strong keep.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Khobragade incident[edit]

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

WP:NOTTEMPORARY (third aragraph} "cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." As of now it is 1 event and per NOTNEWS. Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: title of AfD changed because article title was changed.

~~Move~~ to Devyani Khobragade visa incident or some other title. While Khobragade may not yet meet WP:DIPLOMAT, the incident and its fallout are notable. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A much briefer subsection of indua-US relation perhaps? (i posed this on that talk page)Lihaas (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This incident might be worth mentioning on India–United States relations, depending on its long-term significance, but I don't think the article should be merged there. The intensity of the reaction in the Indian media and the retaliatory measures taken by the Indian government suggest that this incident meets WP:EVENT. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that this article is located at Devyani Khobragade incident. This incident is widely covered in diverse, international sources and has already had a tangible impact on India–US relations. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~Keep as per User:Jinkinson..clearly a notable event...but probably not a notable person ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Move But a better title other than Devyani Khobragade visa incident is needed. Now that it is moved to a better title, we can keep it. The event is notable not because of the incident itself. But because of how it is handled by both nations. I personally think this event meets Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. It requires context to understand and it cannot be provided in India–United States relations article (as suggested above by Lihaas) without giving undue weight to this incident. --Jayarathina (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Violates both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTEMPORARY Veryhuman (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved page to Devyani Khobragade incident as recommended by majority. This incident has swollen up and is impacting India-US relations and will be referred to for long time to come hence cannot be treated as "one of" cases. Cheers AKS 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's been moved. The incident is becoming quite big. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's been moved. Agreed, this incident seems significant not just in terms of India-US relations (that will probably pass) but in the changing jurisprudence of diplomatic rights and immunities. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(as moved) major diplomatic incident. The woman may not be notable, but the incident is notable because of who she is. See Raymond Allen Davis incident a US diplomat who was arrested in Pakistan for killing two people, and the US demanded his release under the Vienna Convention.Martin451 21:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 21:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the current title, Devyani Khobragade incident. This is plainly a notable event given the significant consequences it's had in India, with reactions from senior Indian politicians. The person may or may not be notable but the incident and surrounding controversy is. Robofish (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep under current title incident meets WP:EVENT criteria, as event caused a major change in India government's stand in US related policy. Jethwarp (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the new title "Devyani Khobragade incident". It has already become a quite notable event. Salih (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It is a big event with wide coverage. --Pmsyyz (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (after page move) Notable incident. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 09:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Criticized? Mate we even got articles about Osama, and if we fall into criticism trap then we will have to delete the george bush or obama's article too, but no, this figure is heavily popular right now, and possibly going to play some role in future. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Its a major issue now. Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 10:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should not be deleted. --_SMS^{^{Let's talk}} 10:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event has developed into a major diplomatic spat. -Sahir 10:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Article is notable per coverage. Happydit (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: People are calling it a anti-dalit mentality. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I've thought about this a while and have come to the conclusion that this article is a POV nightmare. Nearly all the sources are editorials aiming to whitewash incontrovertible evidence of fraud, human-trafficking, abuse, and slave labor. 143.215.120.5 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Number two story on Google News today and it is also making headlines (TV) in non-English news, so it certainly is relevant. In addition, the incident is not over as there are further developments (e.g., Indian removing the barricades from US embassy in Delhi).S-1-5-7 (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has many dimensions and is a significant incident to warrant an article here. --Bhadani (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident. Encyclopedic information available. Needs further development in the area of her offence/background. -Rayabhari (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP: A very important discussion among two large democracies of the world about diplomatic immunity vs. local laws. It is very well documented and scholarly written referenced article and provides an important chronological imformation for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.117.16 (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG. It chronicles a worldwide incident with many external sources. At hindustantimes.com the incident sits as 4 of the top 6 stories today. Subject is less than one week old, lack of notoriety cannot possibly be assessed per [[16]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.64.1 (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable incident (NOTTEMPORARY) affecting foreign relations between major countries and interpretation of diplomatic immunity. Already widely publicised and controversial incident. WP:GNG and WP:DIPLOMAT
COMMENT OK I'm not sure what to do here. Another editor has now created a separate article for the woman herself, and that means that this AfD's title is inaccurate. I'm changing the title, to match the article that the AfD notice is on, because I think it's likely that if the new article survives someone will AfD that too and it will need a separate section. Please let me know if there's another way to solve the problem —Soap— 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into India–United States relations. Much of the flap is just Indian politicians posturing to get people behind them with elections looming. The story is possibly at its temporary, passing height right now but should it grow to persuasive and enduring notability, then the paragraph about it at India–United States relations could be forked out to an article. WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:NOTNEWS rules apply. A civil servant breaking employment law is not encyclopaedic and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — O'Dea (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are there two articles on this woman? Devyani Khobragade incident and Devyani Khobragade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.120.5 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Devyani Khobragade is moved to and redirected to Devyani Khobragade incident. Please refer up. Cheers AKS

Correction. I stand corrected, I was wrong. Someone went and created the page back. On 17th Dec, I wrote this page and after AfD and subsequent discussions, I moved it to the 'incident' page as I agree with the comments. Can someone please move the diplomat's page to the 'incident' page please? Cheers AKS

Keep The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond a single event and satisfies GNG. -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 18:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major diplomatic incedent.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notble incident. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable incident. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it remains as major incident after one month, we can reconsider to include it as a section under India–United_States_relations - Prodigyhk (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable because of its coverage internationally. 117.195.83.65 (talk) 13:44, 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. Sandstein 10:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sutherland[edit]

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

The subject of the article doesn't necessarily meet notability criteria; provided links are very limited and don't establish notability. cherkash (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:NOTLINKEDIN —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- He was (and is) important for the development of Scrum. Scrum is used by thousends of people. There is even an article on him in another language Freek Verkerk (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of these provide sufficient criteria to establish notability cherkash (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adding in actual references now. He seems to have made a widely recognised contribution. ~~But the article is incredibly poorly written. Needs to be fixed.~~ Somewhat fixed. -ManicSpider (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, ManicSpider, thanks! by Softzen (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I'm not clear on which external links are acceptable. I can't see the point in most of them. -ManicSpider (talk) 13:12, 17 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) 16:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Is Jeff Sutherland, the co-founder of one of the most popular agile methods for the last decade, not notable? It's a bad joke. Just keep the article and improve it. by Softzen (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Jeff Sutherland is an authoritative source in Agile / Scrum and deserves a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raztazman (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – even after a re-work, the subject's notability is not well established. Most all links/references in the article are only tangential to the subject: they reference the products/ideas he may have developed, but don't clearly reference the subject himself. E.g., it doesn't make sense to keep quoting different sources about Scrum or Agile (to which multiple references exist) since they have separate Wiki articles - especially if none of these sources clearly refer to the subject of the article itself, or support any of the stated facts about Jeff as a person. So the article remains poorly referenced (essentially, unreferenced!) with respect to Jeff himself, and all the external links are not really good sources per Wikipedia standards. cherkash (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Was shocked to see this discussion today. I personally study and practice SCRUM, and I read Jeff Sutherland's name multiple times, in various works as he his highly referenced. I noticed the article lacked two of his books, which where added today. In the world of SCRUM he is Notability has been established.

1 of 14 Authors of the Agile Manifesto many of which also Wikipedia articles.
Published several books and other works on the subject.
Asked to write Foreword but other Agile Authors, such as in "Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash"
CEO of a Company specializing in SCRUM.
Interviewed by FORBES
Contrary to other claims, article is highly referenced with 14 unique references.
Sources are published books from various authors meet the guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

CentervilleDad (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the single-purpose accounts aside, the coverage of this individual in reliable sources (such as Forbes would indicate to me that he meets WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil.LM2000 (talk) 05:14, 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 Speedy keep.

Gender violence in movies[edit]

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

Non-notable as a standalone topic, possibly more suitable as a subtopic of domestic violence. As it is this is just an indiscriminate list that appears to be synthesis. Drm310 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Another experienced editor has agreed to collaborate with the article creator to make it viable. --Drm310 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Nothing to incorporate into domestic violence, really. A separate section on domestic violence and popular culture could be called for, but only in a prose format. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's an argument to be made for an article about this topic, but this is not that article. If someone else wants to start over again and write an article based on reliable sources, that's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the topic is notable despite the article not being in good shape. Per WP:BEFORE, "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted." I suggest moving the article to domestic violence in film. The topic's general notability is demonstrated below:
- The AFI Readers book Violence and American Cinema has the chapter "Documenting Domestic Violence in American Films".
- The book Violence Against Women in Families and Relationships has the chapter "Film, Violence, and Gender".
- The book Engaging Film Criticism: Film History and Contemporary American Cinema has the chapter "The Redemption of Domestic Violence: The New Hollywood Family from To Kill a Mockingbird to Sling Blade".

I also found books with chapters about domestic violence in a specific film. I believe it is possible to also have a list article where we can identify films that have acts of domestic violence. The article list of films featuring surveillance, which I developed, can be used as a template for that, so there can be both prose and list in regard to this topic. Drm310, Jprg1966, NinjaRobotPirate -- what approach would satisfy you here? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a fair proposal. I have stricken my vote to delete. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've also contacted GenderMovie about a possible collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change my mind as long as the resulting article is a list of films in which gender-based violence is central to the plot a major arc. The definition of gender-based violence needs to be established, though, using reliable sources. What I don't want to see is a mile-long list of films that could interpret any act of violence as being gender-motivated. --Drm310 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave it up to secondary sources to determine that and require for each entry to be backed by one (or two, if preferred). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds more like the article that I was envisioning. One source per entry is enough, but the source should clearly state that the violence is gendered. I was also thinking that a real article could be written about this topic: a history of gendered violence, its causes, and its reception. For example, Roger Ebert famously railed against early-80s slasher films for their misogyny and gender-based violence. The BBFC also infamously banned many films from England in the early 1980s because of their gender-based violence. That's what I was expecting to find in this article, and I was ready to argue a strong keep – until I saw the article itself! A list is perfectly fine, but I think a Good/Featured article could be written about this topic. The list itself could be spun off as List of films featuring gender violence or some-such. But I'm OK with any of the proposed solutions, as long as reliable sources are introduced, the list criteria are clearly stated, and the article adheres to the Manual of Style (no inline links). I struck my vote, so if someone wants to close this as "speedy keep", they can. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 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 - Blatant Hoax. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calgar (train)[edit]

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

No sources to be found that mention this derailment or this train in any manner. The fact that the train is described as a "24 decked train" and that the citations given are quite vague leads me to believe that this is likely a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 24-decked train? I don't think even 3 deck models exist. E-class seems to apply only to automobiles and container ships, and one ref is the "The Ship Fact Catalog"? I thought this was a train. Chris857 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This whole article is totally made up. E-class diesel-powered train? 24 decked train? Sources are nonsense. No train collision took place in June of 1904. Totally made up. --CyberXRef^talk 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as obvious hoax. Baton Rouge to Edmonton by train? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:47, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Bubnick[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player. Canada Hky (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing by way of the GNG outside of WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE violations. The subject hasn't played beyond major junior, and at that level, needs to achieve "preeminent honors" -- to wit, being an all-time top ten career scorer or a First Team All-Star -- to meet the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. He hasn't. At his age, a prerequisite for future notability as a hockey player would be to play in the pros. He hasn't done that either. Ravenswing 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. He pretty much sums it up. Nothing to say he meets NHOCKEY and he fails to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above and nom. Patken4 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm actually a little surprised he never went pro, anywhere. Was a good little player for the Hitmen. He is also nn. Reso lute 20:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly, per above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 02:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG with several independent and significant sources including[17][18][19][20], and also meets criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY to wit, as a member of the 2010 Memorial Cup First All-Star Team. Dolovis (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even read the "sources" you post in these discussions? The first one is a blog, thus not a reliable source. The 3rd on is a reprint from hitmenhockey.com thus not independant. And the 4th one isn't even an article, its a database entry. And criteria #4 is for a season First All-Star, not an individual tournament. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a crying shame that the disconnect between what policies, guidelines and the consensus thereof actually hold, and what Dolovis wants them to state, is so profound. His disagreement with them is tolerable (heck, there's at least one contentious issue on which I agree with him against consensus); his routine and willful defiance of them is not. Ravenswing 09:08, 26 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 23:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cymatic therapy[edit]

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

Fringe medical therapy lacking reliable sources to build an article off of. Has issues pertaining to WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS specifically. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - nothing can be found on either Google news or scholar, except for patents and this single entry, outside of Wikipedia. I quick look on Google Books does reveal quite a few books, but a few are self-published textbooks, and I can't tell how many are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an obscure and preposterous fringe medical theory that failes WP:MEDRS. It's also worth checking out Vibroacoustic therapy which is virtually the same idea but credited it to a different inventor and also subject to AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - it is not fringe medical theory. VAT is not fringe medical theory - FDA approved for 3 medical claims and many hospitals and allied health professionals use this for more than 3 decades. VAT uses low frequencies - Cymatic uses high frequencies. I have posted many articles from PubMed and Universities.Cyrinus (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first reference is dead link, second is spam. Upon searching for references, only patents, some books, and an obscure article or two are found- all of which fail WP:MEDRS. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:MEDRS is wrong. Do proper research before voice your opinion. If music therapy is compliant then cymatics is compliant. Cyrinus (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to that opinion. The facts, remain, however, that the sources are not compliant. And please stop with the "if X then Y" argument. You've been told many times that that is an invalid argument on Wikipedia. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cyrinus, please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF, that explains why we do not accept arguments of the form you made above. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - may rise to wp:NFRINGE per this, if CSICOP is considered a RS on what is FRINGE. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This pseudoscience subject is popular with modern naturopathy adherents. I was introduced to the topic via a podcast I stumbled upon here. Upon going through the page's references, it is clear that a large body of "work" exists on the subject. At any rate, a proper encyclopedic treatment of the literature would be beneficial to humanity. Krushia (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question are you suggesting that the podcast is a WP:MEDRS that justifies the notability of this subject? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not believe one will find much at all for WP:MEDRS as this is in the domain of modern (evolving) pseudoscience and is a metatheory. It appears there is substantial WP:RS to establish notability as a pseudoscience belief that combines work such as Niche hypothesis under naturopathy. Krushia (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is difficult to interpret MEDRS. the guidelines are biased towards medicine and pharma - not relevant to mainstream health, wellness - or integrative medicine which is becoming the mainstream in many countries. if we take MEDRS black and white - most of the articles in the wiki must be deleted. good example theta healing was approved and it is on wiki. pemf and other energy medicine, music therapy etc. wiki should include all health and wellness modalities without any bias. future is friendly. people use cymatic therapy, pemf, vibroacoustics, physioacoustics, vibration therapy, sound therapy for many decades... some are even approved by FDA and Health Canada. wiki readers must have freedom of information. enough said. Cyrinus (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Cymatic therapy is not a fringe theory. It isn't mainstream, but so what? Different sound based methods have been helping people in healing process for centuries. See for example raga therapy or Tibetan bowls, to name the few. So healing with sound is nothing new actually. What's wrong with acknowledging modern developments? Unless you want to have an out-of-date encyclopaedia with narrow, orthodox world views, do not delete that article. Oh, and by the way, yes, there are many crappy sources about the subject, that doesn't mean it's false. Fizalfizal (talk) 23:50, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without even leaving the first sentence I'd be sticking a {{Confusing}} at the top. It doesn't even say what the therapy is for. Putting that aside the only references are both dead links (so is the therapy itself?). Google search for Cymatic therapy yields nothing useful. Looking at google books, there are quiet a few books, but per WP:QUESTIONABLE most are questionable and appear to be self-promoting in nature (promoting their own techniques/alternative medicines). This article fails WP:RSMED. --CyberXRef^talk 16:16, 17 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) 16:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to have much, if any, notability. Could conceivably be merged or redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure where. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems like it might possibly have notability as a pseudoscience. Searching for sources I go a lot of 'noise' from unrelated concepts. They might exist, but I doubt it. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reverted an edit that added several votes under different names and changed votes that had already been cast. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 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 Speedy delete. Speedied by User:Mark Arsten, WP:G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Galea (singer/songwriter)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. A few self-released EPs and some song writing credits. Claims of number 1 chart hits not supported by available citations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete unable to locate sourcing that shows subject meets WP:MUSIC do not see subject meeting WP:GNG. There is another John Galea who also does not meet WP:music Dloh cierekim 15:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable UK singer/songwriter who needs a wikepedia page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.70.199 (talk • contribs)
CommentReview of sources shows do not amount to significant coverage for GNG. Dloh cierekim 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a nearly identical re-creation of John Galea, recently deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HorsefeathersI should have checked that. Dloh cierekim 21:05, 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. Courcelles 23:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wang[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - loosing record at anything approaching top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One top tier fight does not show notability (see WP:NMMA). Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no doubt he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:49, 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. Due to the now clear, policy-backed consensus, it would appear Munjed Al Muderis is not currently notable enough to warrant an article. This close does not prejudice against recreation at a later time, if/when he is covered by more reliable sources. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Munjed Al Muderis[edit]

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

Biography of living person that does not establish notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Does not pass WP:SCHOLAR; a search of Google Scholar finds only ONE publication, cited only 28 times. (It's about Zebra Lines, a concept that has not become generally accepted; IMO the Zebra lines article should also be deleted.) He comes closer to notability via WP:GNG; Google News Archive finds half a dozen articles in mainstream publications about his "bionic" prosthetic limbs and his allegations against the Australian refugee camps. (Amusingly, our article says he left Iraq in horror rather than amputate the EARS of Army deserters, while the news article says he was ordered to amputate their LIMBS.) I don't find this degree of coverage to meet the notability standard, and I'm hesitant to keep a medical article that has so little WP:MEDRS sourcing. If kept, the article should certainly be edited to remove the names of his patients! --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting history: An SPA wrote three articles earlier this year: one about Dr. Al Muderi, one about his practice, and one about the Zebra Lines. Their article about Dr. Al Muderi was declined at AfC in August [21] and a new article (this one) was created by a second SPA in October. The first SPA's article about the practice was declined three separate times at AfC, then improved by the second SPA, but still seems to be languishing at AfC.[22] In October the second SPA simply went ahead (bypassing AfC) and created an article about Dr. Al Muderis's practice, The Osseointegration Group of Australia, which largely duplicates this biographical article including listing the names of his patients; that article needs to be looked at. The third article, about Zebra Lines, ~~was somehow passed at AfC~~ bypassed AfC; I am about to nominate it for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zebra Lines. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this is cute: The journal article which described Zebra Lines had two other co-authors besides Dr. Al Muderi, but the reference citations in the two articles list Al Muderi as the only author. Yet more evidence that this related group of articles is promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the duplicate AfC entry for The Osseointegration Group of Australia. That article is pretty spammy, too, though. Maybe this should have been a mass AfD. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is kept (which is still up in the air), the article about The Osseointegration Group of Australia should be redirected to it. The information is 100% duplicated. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, thanks for your input however, I disagree with your conclusion that Dr Al Muderis (not Muderi as you repeatedly state)is not notable enough for Wikipedia. He is the leading surgeon performing Osseointegration not just in Australia but in the world. As you mention there are multiple mentions of him in news articles which only further proves his notability. You mention a fact discrepancy between the article I created and a transcript from the ABC show 7.30 Report. I am a journalist myself (you can google me to substantiate this) and unfortunately sometimes news sources get facts wrong sometimes. There are three other sources I can provide you with that include interviews with Dr Al Muderis where he says himself it was the ears of army deserters that he was instructed to cut off. The reason his patients names are mentioned as they are examples of world first operations of their kind and Brendan Burkett being an accomplished Paraolympian makes him worthy of mentioning. There has been a few more articles about osseointegration and Dr Al Muderis published in prominent national Australian magazines this month which I am happy to add to the reference list. I'm sorry if you view these articles as promotional this is not the case. Rather my intention was to provide the broader amputee community with a procedure which can dramatically change their life. I do have an affiliation with Dr Al Muderis in that I was a patient of his. I am a amputee and had osseointegration surgery a year ago and it has changed my life dramatically. I am rid of the pain I endured daily and can now walk freely without restriction. I only stumbled across the procedure by accident and since it has had such a positive effect on my life all I want is for other amputees to experience the same happiness and success I have. It is a new surgery so is not common mainstream knowledge yet so deleting these articles would only deny the amputee community of information that could improve their life.

I am happy to improve the articles with your feedback if you let me know what it is you feel they are lacking. Thanks. Miranda Cashin (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Miranda Cashin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If this is verifiable, please provide a link. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the coverage in the article there is also Weaver, Clair (1 August 2013), "From penniless prisoner to bionic surgeon", The Australian Women's Weekly. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With two articles in Web of Knowledge (the Zebra Lines thing MelanieN notes plus a paper on hip arthroplasty cited only twice), he certainly doesn't seem to pass PROF. The news stories seem to relate a WP:SINGLEEVENT. Together, I'm not convinced those things add up to notability. Cnilep (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which event? The not cutting off ears/feet, escaping from his country, trouble in the detention centre or his operations? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The operation. Pretty sure not cutting off people's ears doesn't make someone notable. Not cutting off limbs is a pretty common achievement. Ditto leaving one's country, or being verbally abused in a jail. None of those things go to notability. He's known for an operation on a notable person; everything else is background. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gross trivialization of the facts. Not cutting someones ears off, when ordered to by a dictator, in a totalitarian country and having to leave the country to escape punishment is quite an achievement.--Xman64 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: how can he be such a renowned expert in osseointegration ("the leading surgeon performing Osseointegration not just in Australia but in the world") when it appears he has never published a single paper on the subject? [23] --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 29 November 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) 07:22, 30 November 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, buff bills 7701 12:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some doctor who has published one article and has an unusual background story but not really notable. jni (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Some doctor~~ A prominant Orthopaedic Surgeon.. ~~who has published one article~~ who has published three articles.. [24] and coined a well published phrase in the industry - Zebra Lines (which has been updated recently to reflected wikipedias requirement for multiple citations) ~~not really notable~~ Has had many articles published within the Australia media on his life and work. --Xman64 (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable notability per generic guideline: significant coverage multiple reliable sources. - Altenmann >t 17:01, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin comment - While it is not standard practice to relist debates three times, I'm relisting this debate for the specific purpose of requesting further discussion on this feature, done on Muderis by the Australian Women's Weekly. Do the editors here at AFD believe that this combined with the current references in the article meet the requirements at WP:GNG and WP:BLP? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not previously commented, but on the specific question of whether the Women's Weekly article should count as an RS for the purposes of WP:GNG my answer has to be in the affirmative. As a UK man I am not in the habit of reading Australian women's magazines but unless there is something of which I am aware the fact that it is aimed specifically at the female market and the magazine may also contain material that would not be considered suitable for Wikipedia cannot be a bar. Many publications have a readership which is heavily skewed. It qualifies in other respects and GNG is thereby satisfied. --AJHingston (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reasons provided by MelanieN above are correct, and this article doesn't seem to meeet WP:MEDRS standards. I understand why some may feel this is a borderline call, but what the article claims he's famous for - the phrase 'Zebra Lines' - is not generally accepted. In addition, the "accomplishments" section is filled with two-liners more appropriate in articles about the patients themselves, not the doctor. Finally, the infobox looks awful. If kept, there are definitely improvements to be made, but I don't see the notability here to take that step. GRUcrule (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold everything! I just noticed that the main reference for this article [25] - a source which is cited six separate times and is used to support claims like descent from the Iraqi royal family - appears to have been written by Munjed Al Muderis himself, and not by "Peter Meehan" as the reference claims. Somebody please double check this; I don't want to be the only one saying that the authorship of the primary source appears to have been falsified. If this is true, then a good deal of the article needs to be junked, as based on a self-referential or primary source. Furthermore, when most of the third-party news stories talk about his past, they are getting their information from the subject, in the form of interviews and such. It looks to me as if all of the "fleeing Iraq" reporting is based only on his own colorful stories; basically everything about his life pre-Australia seems to be unverified and based on his own say-so. The only reliably sourced information in the article is the news stories about his patients and their "cyborg legs". --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, while the PDF itself has a number of authors, the part about "a descendant from the 2nd family of the Iraq Royal Family when the country was under British rule" is indeed written by Munjed Al Muderis himself, making it an unverified claim. So that has to go unless someone can provide another source for this. --CyberXRef^talk 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper, the reference about him graduating from Baghdad University is also self-published. In fact the entire Early Career section is based self-published source (even the ABC news is just a transcript of an interview, which is self-published in nature). Also, how is proposing a term (Zebra Lines, which looks like should be deleted as well) an achievement. --CyberXRef^talk 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for verifying. It looks to me as if the ENTIRE section of the pdf about Munjed Al Muderis was written by the subject himself. Did you find anything anywhere about this subject written by a "Peter Meehan"? BTW as I noted above, the authorship of the published article about zebra lines has also been somewhat falsified; both here and at the Zebra Lines page, the journal article is cited to Al Muderis as sole author, rather than to Al Muderis and two co-authors. We may need to regard all the cited references with some suspicion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly anything I would say would be a repeat of what was said above. It fails WP:PROF; there are a limited amount of publication. --CyberXRef^talk 16:24, 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 A10 - recreation of Keshavdas. Alexf^(talk) 13:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav das[edit]

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

Untranslated. Tritario (talk) 13:07, 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. Courcelles 23:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qmee[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a non-notable website created by a new editor with no other edits. The article sources are personal blogs, company profile websites and affiliated websites with no evidence of editorial oversight. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 12:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence of notability.Deb (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Links to paid advertising and websites connected to the subject are not sufficient to meet verifiable information requirement. A bit promotional in tone. Not sure what a rewrite would leave behind. Dloh cierekim 15:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. website. jni (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB pretty clearly. --CyberXRef^talk 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Google search I just ran returned a lot of forum and blog posts. None of which help it to meet WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 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. Close per SNOW. I'm not closing this necessarily as "speedy" since I read the nomination statement, short as it is, as an equivalent to "pure spam which needs to be rewritten entirely etc". Having said that, though, consensus for this to be kept is clear and there is no need to keep this open longer. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sol (Laptop)[edit]

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

advertising by the founder of the company The Banner talk 11:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the second nomination, as the first was this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeWi. The owner and his wingman keep going on with adding this piece of advertising in other articles. The Banner talk 11:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG based on the sources in the article, let alone looking elsewhere; Banner, please stop nominating articles without checking if they're actually about notable things or not, just because they are slightly promotional. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I swallow that Sol is being seen as notable but the company is not-notable as stated in the outcome of the last AfD. And this article is revert back to the company by the founder and owner of that company. The Banner talk 13:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you went about things in entirely the wrong way. Instead of rewriting the article properly, you left it in an awful state, not even bothering to add it into any categories... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least I did an attempt to remove spam and irrelevant info. But stating that the failure to add categories is a proper excuse for the owner/founder/author to reinstate all the mess, makes me sick and sad. The Banner talk 13:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say it was a proper excuse? The fact is, it was obvious that the mess you left was always going to force the hand of the company, especially when you neglected even the very basic things, like categories. If you'd done it properly, it would've been far less likely that you would've been reverted; and if you had been reverted, you'd have had a much stronger ground to stand on. The article isn't even particularly spammy right now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly endorse it by refusing to act against it. And the present article is just a failure to adhere to the outcome of the first AfD. The Banner talk 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I and others have pointed out, AfD is not cleanup. I do not "endorse" the current article, and your attempts at manipulation are a discredit to yourself. To be blunt, the present article is better than the hash you produced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and recently survived AfD under different name (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeWi). While there's no rule against renominating an article, it's arguably disruptive to renominate without answering any of the opposing arguments from the previous AfD. Nominator has also been involved in content/editing disputes over the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The conclusion was: The result was Move to Sol (laptop) and make a redirect . But now the article is again about the non-notable company WeWi. The Banner talk 13:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no good rationale to delete this article.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the founder and owner of the company has reverted the article about the laptop to an article about the company. That means that he makes an unpolite gesture with the middle finger to everyone involved in the first AfD which concluded that the laptop was notable but the company was not notable: The result was Move to Sol (laptop) and make a redirect. Now we have to do the whole discussion all over again because the founder/owner/author refuses to accept the outcome of the first nomination. All the fuss about Wiki-PR will be utterly useless when you don't act against this type of promotion/advertising. The Banner talk 13:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your argument however even if this article is written by the founder of the company the article still meets wp:GNG and should not be deleted. If you feel like the author is give us the middle finger then talk to him or tell an admin don't Delete his work.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant COI, sockpuppetry and overt support from people who know better aside, the laptop itself is probably semi-notable, with five secondary sources covering it. If there's a suitable merge target then so be it, but it's a waste of effort going through multiple AfDs. That said, the puppets should be cluebatted promptly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the original AfD; the issues highlighted in that discussion have not been resolved, but there are no new issues being presented here, and the article can be fixed. It appears nobody has made a serious attempt at this point. As established previously, the laptop is notable, the company is not. Also, I respectfully suggest both The Banner and DSNR step away from editing this article so the page can be cleaned up by neutral editors without being tainted by their ongoing edit war. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now DSNR is starting to accuse me of vandalism while vandalizing himself, I have to step back anyway because he is creeping under my skin. The Banner talk 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - The topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Examples of reliable sources that provide significant coverage include: [26], [27], [28], [29]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and survived a very recent AfD by the same nominator as this one. Renominating this soon is disruptive, as is replacing an article with eight sources, with an article with two sources, one of which is the Daily mail (which is not a RS).Martin451 16:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same as others commenting here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 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. Courcelles 23:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afkar-e-Rajput International Magazine[edit]

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

This is about totally not notable magazine. Only source found in Google is Facebook. The article contains no indication of significance. Author removed Proposed deletion template from article. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything of importance either... --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another caste advocacy organ. No obvious notability using GSearch etc & the entry's purpose would seem to be promotional in nature (eg: I've just removed a bunch of spammed barelinks to a related website at Muslim Rajputs.) The listed sources are in fact almost all related to Rajput and not to this magazine. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No obvious evidence of notability. This article's creator's edits all seem to be promotional in nature. -- The Anome (talk) 16:37, 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 redirect to SD Crvena Zvezda. Courcelles 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Džudo Klub Crvena Zvezda[edit]

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

Non-notable Judo club. There should be something far more interesting than existence for a listing of a martial art club. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a policy-based nomination rather than one based on personal tastes? Simple clicking on the "find sources" link above (known as WP:BEFORE) would reveal a fair number of reliable sources. They are as notable as a judo club from a mid-range country can reasonably be: not much, but a medal here and there [30] provides a certain level of media coverage. No such user (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability A quick look at the category Judo (or other MA) organizations show only a few examples of individual clubs. In these cases notability is clearly estabilished.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no independent sources and doesn't really make a case for notability. I was going to suggest a redirect to SD Crvena Zvezda, but that article doesn't have any sources either.Mdtemp (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SD Crvena Zvezda There's no independent support for this judo club's notability, so redirecting it to the parent club seems reasonable. If the parent club is later found non-notable, then so be it, but I always prefer a reasonable redirect to outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SD Crvena Zvezda is logical. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:34, 24 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'm withdrawing my nomination. And please be civil before trolling me about a mess up. I appreciate assuming good faith, thanks :) SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Moffat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May fail Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:PROF SarahStierch (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF #3 as elected fellow of Royal Society of Canada (search the membership list here) and WP:PROF #5 as Professeur titulaire[31] which is the highest professorial rank in French Canada[32]. Looks like a fairly obvious failure of WP:BEFORE: you are supposed to establish whether the person is notable (in your opinion) before nominating, not just post "may fail" without checking. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion yet on the "fellow" thing (which does look sufficient to meet PROF), but PROF#5 is most certainly not met by being "professeur titulaire". That way, any US full professor would also be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a full professor is normally considered sufficient. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics)/Precedents and the notes to WP:PROF which say "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments". Criteria #5 does not specify the exact rank for academics in Canadian universities, but it refers to the highest rank of professors in any country. Montreal was ranked 84th in the world by THE[33] and therefore qualifies as a "a major institution of higher education and research". Based on Google Scholar, he also has an h-index of at least 50 which easily meets WP:PROF #1, but someone with access to a better database may be able to get a more accurate figure. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a huge h-index is way beyond what we usually take as indicating notability. Just for the record, though, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of PROF. Being full professor is not the equivalent of a named chair or a "distinguished professorship". As for that precedents essay, I'm impressed that you even found that. If you look at the history, you'll see that it's pretty old and mostly refers to outcomes in 2005-2006. Since then, PROF has evolved a lot. Several of the examples given there (s lot of publications, chairing a conference discussion, for example) will not be enough for a "keep" nowadays.

Keep GScholar lists several articles with very high citation rates. Web of Science lists 436 articles that have been cited over 9200 times with an h-index of 47. Highest citation counts 259, 177, and 153 (9 articles with more than 100 citations). Clear pass of PROF#1. The Fellowship most likely would be enough, too, but they have several classes of Fellows and I did not check which class Moffat is in an whether all classes qualify for notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the fellowship of the RSCan.Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Further note this is the first nomination of Anthony Moffat the astronomer; the previous article was about some unknown. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula and Randykitty. This is a very clear keep, and the nom deserves a WP:TROUT for not doing a WP:BEFORE check and so wasting everyone's time. -- 101.119.14.157 (talk) 01:13, 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 23:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Science Force[edit]

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

I cannot find any coverage of these guys in reliable sources, or any evidence that they meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. Fails WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 08:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to exist in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBAND. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:35, 24 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. Note that this should NOT lead to G4 deletions in the future as this event will become notable beyodn question in a few years Courcelles 23:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)[edit]

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

No references or sources. It's too early to create this page because it's still even unknown how many places will confederations have in the final tournament IgorMagic (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The fact that it's not sourced is not a mater for AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". As it's still unknown how many places will AFC have in the final tournament, I think the article is only a speculation now.--IgorMagic (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But they will have a qualifiying group. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently unsourced speculation about the format the tournament may take: fails WP:CRYSTAL (which allows predictions and speculation only if done by experts in reliable sources). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing factual to say at this point. WP:TOOEARLY, WP:V. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two reasons why. One, it's unreferenced. And two, violates WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too far in the future. Giant Snowman 18:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - literally nothing is know about the qualification process other than the fact that it will happen, a separate article is not yet justified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content here consists almost entirely of an unreferenced proposal. There is nothing useful to say about this topic yet; when there is something to say, the article can, should, and will be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though the event will take place there is no reliably sourced content available as yet. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:38, 24 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. Please assume good faith in my closure. If you are unhappy with this decision, please take it to deletion review, I will not be offended, because I'll just send you to deletion review on my talk page. Thanks again everyone for participating. SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Olechowski[edit]

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

What we have here, ladies and gentleman, is a rare find: a seven year old hoax. This unreferenced article (the external link doesn't seem to be very relevant) doesn't check out on Google and Google Books - I tried the Polish name variant Józef too, and there is nothing reliable about such person (born 1898, Polish senator). He is not listed in pl:Kategoria:Senatorowie V kadencji (1938-1939) (which has bios for 89 out of 96 Polish senators elected in 1938). There's a bishop pl:Józef Olechowski - different person. As noted, it is my conclusion this is a hoax (or more AGFing, an obituary (no date of death, though?) for a non-notable person, filled with at least one incorrect fact - the subject being a senator, which is the only possible claim to notability this article makes). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not able to Verify the person's existance or what part of the story is accurate if he existed. Iselilja (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources establishing that this person exists. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no prejudice to recreation if more reliable sources appear. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and preserve in WP Museum of Longest-Surviving Hoaxes. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dang! How does this stuff resist discovery for so long? Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In this edit ([34]) the article's author User:Vumba indirectly reveals that Josef Olechowski was his grandfather per the description of a massacre. While writing articles about relatives may be problematic due to a possible COI, and it does not help to establish notability, it appears reasonable to assume that the article is not hoax as is, although we cannot verify its contents (or at least have been unable to verify it so far). Let's assume for a moment, that this article is about a real person, and that he was actually a Polish senator, are senators likely to be notable? If so (and if the Polish WP has 89 bios for 96 senators elected in 1938, this may indicate something), it might be worth trying to dig a little deeper and search for historical documents. There are many notable topics for which there are no online references today, while reliable offline sources exist (or existed decades ago). Please don't get me wrong, I don't know if this person was notable at all, I just want to remind us that for many historical topics "no Google hits" means absolutely nothing in regard to notability. At least, if this stuff would not be made up, but an article about a notable person, it would be quite a good start for an article and it would be a pity to loose it, even without (m)any references. This does not free us from trying to establish notability now, but we should be careful not to draw premature conclusions just because Google does not turn up anything. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a limit to how much time we should spend looking for possible obscure sources when the editor/s of the article doesn't provide any. A deletion now is no hindrance for starting a new article if sources that demonstrate notability turn up later . The article didn't look like a typical hoax to me either; might have been a relative who was writing according to family memory and maybe didn't get all the facts correct (for instance the senator claim). Iselilja (talk) 20:18, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big Chief Mkuja[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 16:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article look like somthing that someone wrote to promote their own band and the sources show nothing to prove the subjects notibily.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party coverage —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passes no 1 and no 12 of the music notability criterion.Therefor should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.247.90 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Explain how in more detail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 17 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, Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

having gained national radio in the UK (BBC Radio 6) - in conjunction with having musicians already cited within Wikipedia as being worthy of noteworthy inclusion - I can see no valid reason to delete this entry. I also rather disagree with a comment made previously in this debate that the entry has been made to promote the band - there are far better areas of promotion should that be the case - and as far as I can ascertain this entry has been made on valid grounds of authenticity. thank you for reading. Dr Alphonzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Alphonzo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I heard this band on radio 6, a popular radio show in the UK, and liked them, in my research I found two of their members are notable musicians, which is one of the requirements on wiki - it doesn't matter if you like the band or not, the fact it has notable musicians , that are listed means they should not be deleted - Magrat Garlik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.80.62 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) In regard to veracity of claims in regard to musicians on the Big Chief Mkuja page I quote from Wiki page Akrylykz Other members of the group were Steve Pears (vocals, tenor saxophone), Stevie "B" Robottom (vocals, alto saxophone, keyboards), Wojciech "Piotr" Swiderski (drums), Michael "Fred" Reynolds (bass), and Nik "Akrylyk" Townend (guitar).[1]Fred Reynolds toured with Roland Gifts Fine Young Cannibals in 2002 Discography from same page;Black and Dekker (with Desmond Dekker) - Stiff, SEEZ 26, 1980 Clive Thomas is mentioned on Wiki page for the 'Room' The Room formed in 1979 with an initial line-up of Dave Jackson (vocals), Robyn Odlum (guitar), Becky Stringer (bass), and Clive Thomas (drums, percussion).[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahouna Dreaming (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 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 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any reliable references discussing this band in any extensive way - clearly fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SEE REVIEW OF THIS BANDS ALBUM AT WWW.PINKUSHION.COM ONLINE MUSIC SITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.247.90 (talk) 17:19, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex G[edit]

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

Completely non-notable YouTube cover artist. This was originally a redirect before being taken over by someone associated with the subject (and with the related act Tyler Ward). No hits, no record label, no coverage, no famous twerking, no coverage of the person. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's probably some snarky essay about this kind of situation, but I can't seem to remember any offhand. I guess I'll fall back to WP:BIGNUMBER. Having a blog on Tumblr and a million subscribers doesn't really do anything for notability, unfortunately. Try again when she's got some press attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO & WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 09:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She has a self-made music video releasing this week. She also has a few million fans + each youtube video has views in the millions. I do not think her page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.167.161 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks--your $5000 check is in the mail. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep 'em coming! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Rusch[edit]

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

Notable only for being the recipient of a single second-level decoration. Generally, and backed up by WP:SOLDIER, it takes two second-level decorations to establish notability failing any other reason for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. One source that I saw isn't going to be enough to reach the notability guidelines so what happens if there is no notability? It gets deleted. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Ashbeckjonathan Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Wong[edit]

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

Delete because there is no reliable coverage about this person in sources, films, music, or books. Achievements credited to person are not sufficient in scope to warrant an article here on their own. No photographs exist of this person. This man leaves little or no trace of his existence. Fails "Notable" policy and "Sources." "Verify." Like Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but Verify." Fail. Deceptobot67 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Deceptobot67 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Wiki brah (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of photos isn't relevant, but no solid independent sources are presented. Note that this page was tagged for G5 deletion (the AFD, not the article) because Deceptobot is a sock of a blocked user, but I've declined it because I'd like to see this article at AFD, so there's no real point in deleting it and immediately recreating it. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? There are eight references in the article. For a start, what makes OlimpBase (used as a source in many Wikipedia articles and one of the major chess databases on the Internet) non-solid and non-independent? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hate to see anyone accede to the request of a banned sockpuppet, even if they think he may be "right", as this encourages him to continue his trolling, harrassing, disruptive behaviour. Next time perhaps speedy the original request, wait a few days, then raise your own Afd? Also the alleged lack of photos besides being irrelevant is verifiably false; photos exist, just no free ones we can use. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a real, verifable person, but just not notable enough. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wong's notability is somewhat niche; in Jamaican chess circles he's something of a legendary figure and still talked about. Here's a recent reference in Jamaica's major newspaper. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki Brah. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not very notable, but being a national chess champion is surely a notable achievement that is verified in the sources. While WP:ATHLETE does not have a separate entry for chess, a look at the sports that do have an entry shows that winning the senior national championship is typically held as sufficient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. A weak keep maybe. A national champion, but from a small country with few chess players. I believe he was exceptionally talented, winning the Jamaican championship at 16 and defeating at least two master level players at the 1976 World Junior (Nir Grinberg and Marcel Sisniega). He did all this with no coach or trainer; obviously the Jamaican Chess Federation lacked the infrastructure to hone his talent. His US Master title is not very notable and wouldn't warrant an article in itself. The question, then, is whether his strong early promise warrants an article. I'll let the concensus process sort it out. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No sources. No notable. The author of this article needs to familiarise himself with Wikipedia policies. Holistic stan (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)— Holistic stan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (striking blatant sock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 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) 05:30, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CADprofi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The AfD decision in April 2011 looked decisive, but the article appears to have continued through a subsequent overturned G4. There are a couple of pieces of Closeupmedia copy in mid-2012 but I am not seeing anything to contradict the April 2011 decision; it still appears to fail WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 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, czar ♔ 04:43, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Keating[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTINHERITED. every media mention I find, refers to her being the daughter of former Prime Minister Paul Keating. her actual career is unremarkable. and being a supposed socialite is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: I don't think that WP:BIO is met at present. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 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, czar ♔ 04:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the in-article list of involvements with minor start-ups and her own personal projects, she is not independently notable of her father. She might be, one day, so I wouldn't strongly object to a redirect to Paul Keating but I can't see how we could substantiate a pass against WP:GNG at the moment. Stalwart111 11:25, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Johnson (model)[edit]

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

This is far from my usual subject areas, but I cannot see how the career is yet notable. or the references adequate. I've notified the ed. who accept it from AfC . DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I approved this through AfC, and it was probably on the basis on two Northern Territory News articles and a NAFA magazine cover shoot. I make that significant coverage in three reliable sources. Whether "three" is enough to meet WP:GNG - who knows? A news and web search brings up lots of hits, but most are unreliable or already listed in the article. I won't shed tears if the article gets deleted, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: Ms Johnson does not appear to have had a notable career to this point, and we don't need to have an article on her, and so probably shouldn't per her presumption to privacy. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 5 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) 02:25, 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, czar ♔ 04:42, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Ayala[edit]

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

Delete, not finding sources and this is a very common name for spanish or hispanic ethnicities. Source provided does not work or show notability. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find only passing mentions: 1, 2, not enough to establish notability per GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 00:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 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, L Faraone 02:19, 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, czar ♔ 04:41, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Prism[edit]

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

Non notable. Sancho 00:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:57, 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, czar ♔ 04:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything more than passing mentions, and its website seems to have gone dead earlier this year. [35] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:38, 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. Secret ^account 01:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lj Ugarte[edit]

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

Wildly non-notable, unsourced except for imdb and first party refs. No clear claim to notability, just mentions of his film and music activities with no indication at all that they're notable or have had third party coverage. Cursory search for refs shows only user-generated content. Speedied numerous times going back to 2006 (once under this title, another as Luis john ugarte six times as Lj ugarte) but this somehow made it under the wire in September and PROD was declined. Recreated by multiple accounts, may need salting. Hairhorn (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:PROMO, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIR, etc. No indication or assertion of notability, no valid references or references at all. Salt per 8 deletions over 7 years by nom's count. Ivanvector (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt including salting previously used alternate names, per nom. -Nat Gertler (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and poorly referenced. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:10, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rotolliptic Mechanism[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY. Completely unsourced originial research with no Google results. By the way those are interesting thoughts, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't appropriate place for publishing new researches/inventions. I advise some patent company. Alex^{discussion ★} 02:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. This reminds me of a simplified Wankel engine, so if I am right, it is not entirely original, but it definitely isn't notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Inventor has not provided any sources... Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 04:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 02:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Lu and Partners[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 00:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major and notable Hong Kong architectural firm in business for 37 years. We don't delete an article about a notable topic because the article has some promotional language. Instead, we prune and improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And this attitude is why Wikipedia will loose the battle against marketeers and companies like Wiki-PR. The Banner talk 11:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Article meets GNG and ORG from sources already in the article; no valid rationale for deletion as AfD is not cleanup. Tangential remarks about other paid editors aren't helpful either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nomination statement is a bit, well, short, but holy moly, one could practically nominate this page for speedy deletion: it's almost a portfolio. I'm going to prune some. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as notable, meeting GNG, but indeed my first thought was "it is a portfolio." "Notable Projects" section should be deleted, or perhaps pared down to a listing of buildings of those with an independent, reliable source, such as the West Kowloon Cultural District which has Archdaily as a source. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – highly successful architectural firm. The article has more than enough sufficient and verifiable sources to meet guidelines regarding sourcing. The article may be written in a portfolio-like, advertising-like prose style, but this can be fixed with added research and precision. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 15:42, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Universe[edit]

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

Vanity article and autobiographical. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. Contested PROD. Recreated after CSD.A7. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable rapper with a social media presence, and not much else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - good grief there are some long bows being drawn here - appeared once not with Eminem but with a label-mate of Eminem. That's pushing it. I can't see how the subject could possibly meet WP:GNG with the sources available. Stalwart111 03:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this guy meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still the same reason I requested for speedy deletion last week: A7. Fails every criteria in WP:MUSICBIO.--Ben Ben (talk) 18:53, 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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 01:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chessington World of Adventures Resort[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article about a notable 82 year old zoo and amusement park is not an "advertisement" and unless evidence of a payment to the Wikimedia Foundation in exchange is provided, the ad claim should be withdrawn. This zoo is covered in a multi-volume encyclopedia of zoos here. Overly promotional content should be corrected through normal editing, not deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article relies substanially on selfpub'd references, but this is not a reason for deletion. Keep and clean it up, or tag it and someone will be along shortly. Ivanvector (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - You mean that someone will remove the advertising in 2025? The Banner talk 11:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major UK theme park. Extensive coverage in tourist guides/reviews[36] [37](pp82-102) [38] [39] and in news whenever something goes wrong[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true, but it is plain promo not a neutral description. The Banner talk 11:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Chessington World of Adventures Resort is a theme park, zoo and hotel in South West London, England. It lies 12 miles (19 km) south of Central London, in the Chessington area of the Kingston upon Thames borough. Historically opened as Chessington Zoo in 1931, an amusement park was developed alongside the zoo, opening in 1987" sounds like a neutral description to me. Much of the rest of the article likewise. It isn't even tagged for promotional/advertising content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Opening times? The Banner talk 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented, as AfD is not cleanup; Chessington World of Adventures Resort is a major UK theme park with enormous amounts of coverage in the press. Banner, did you even attempt a Google search? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article?? The Banner talk 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. The article is not even that much of an advert, and I've no idea what's provoked this crusade, but it's very heavily misguided. You'd be better off withdrawing all of these AfDs; pretty much all of the things you nominated are clearly notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zoo/park that easily meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. WP:Deletion is not cleanup seems to apply here.Martin451 15:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article subject easily meets WP:GNG, and AfD is not for cleanup, as others have noted. — sparklism ^hey! 10:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course. Sometimes I really don't think we're taking this project seriously. The nominator needs to realise the difference between the way an article is written and the notability of the subject. Only the latter is grounds for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, when you don't have proper arguments, just attack the nominator. The Banner talk 23:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Banner, his point is clearly valid, given the fact that you're still insisting on keeping open this AfD on a highly notable theme park, when the article isn't even that promotional. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, it might be most helpful if you went to the Chessington talk page and articulated exactly what you dislike about the page ('promotional' is a rather subjective adjective) - I wouldn't mind making the changes for you. Earflaps (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Absurd nomination regarding a major theme park of long standing.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:21, 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 speedily deleted by User:Dlohcierekim per CSD A7 and CSD G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add page about gangs[edit]

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

Advertising a gang which has never been referenced by any third party sources (most likely made up by the author), written from the first person point of view of the author, and has horrible grammar. Aclany (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 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.