Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 February	11 February >

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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7—Kww(talk) 23:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Hearts[edit]

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

Mixtape that fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings and WP:GNG as no significant coverage independent of the subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Page creator blanked page after AfD notice placed indicating desire for deletion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Either nonsense or abuse, and either reason will do for removing it. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bootstrap Concentration Camp[edit]

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

Article makes uncited claims about physical mistreatment of Puerto Ricans during Operation Bootstrap. I can't locate any sources to support the claims, all the links on the page are either deadlinks or lead only to headline pages e.g. Washington Post and the use of an image of a pig farm with the title of "Operation Bootstrap Concentration Camp" suggests that this is solely an attack page. NtheP (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article seems to be collection of unrelated topics. I think it may actually qualify as vandalism. - Mr X 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Reading through the article, it just doesn't make sense. The individual paragraphs make sense seperately, but when put together, it becomes nonsense/vandalism. Josh3580_talk/hist 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it as CSD G3 Vandalism. The editor is evidently copy pasting from other articles in an attempt to disrupt our fine encyclopedia. - Mr X 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just seen the additions since I tagged it, and yes it does now look like complete rubbish being cut and pasted from other articles. NtheP (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the 'extraneous' bits aren't totally irrelevant to Puerto Rico, but there appears to be tampering with them. Others are irrelevant to the subject. Generally unencyclopaedic. Not sure about 'vandalism', so I haven't deleted it as such. More like WP:OR. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're assuming more good faith than I am. I'm baffled as to what Dadaism or the Chicago World's Fair have to do with a concentration camp. BTW, I've also started an SPI on the article creator and the very helpful IP. - Mr X 22:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If the subject is a real topic, someone can write a legitimate article about it instead of this incoherent article. And if the subject is not a real topic, this article deserves to get deleted immediately. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy delete as vandalism or test page. Hairhorn (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nortel. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP-VPN Lite[edit]

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

No advancement of Notability. Keep running in to articles about Avaya products stuffed full with technical jargon; they offer little to no encyclopaedic value. Wikipedia is not product placement. If it's notable that needs to be established and I personally can't see how it would meet WP:N. Rushyo ^Talk 17:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I believe I created this page many years ago, the content was via the expertise of a teammate who needed help with the Wikipedia platform. I have no insight into the value of this page, or the current status of "IP-VPN Lite" as a product of Nortel (now Ayava). My recollection was that this was a proprietary spin on industry IP-VPN solutions of the time. Bogowan (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was created by Technobabble (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:16, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company Nortel, per WP:PRODUCT, merging where appropriate. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:49, 3 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nortel per AdventurousSquirrel and WP:PRODUCT. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Yoshi video games. I don't think anybody reasonably claims this is non-notable, there is no doubt in anyone's mind this'll eventually be FA material; it can be un-redirected whenever more content is available. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yarn Yoshi[edit]

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

This is not yet a notable topic that is explicitly excluded by the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate". Lacks detailed coverage in independent quality reliable sources beyond that of the products development announcement. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Screenshots and video of the game have been released, and there's a good amount of coverage from reliable third-party sources. There may not be too many details about the game right now, but I can see more information coming in the next few months, and this article should be kept as a stub article that will be updated with more information as it comes. The game itself is notable, since it's being developed by a major video game company, and it's part of a major video game series. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "The game itself is notable, since it's being developed by a major video game company, and it's part of a major video game series" is an example of inherited notability, and the rest of your rational conveniently ignores the What Wikipedia is not policy, the sources that exist are just reporting on the product announcement, with no clear release date or actual game to review they are basicly speculating and as an encyclopedia we don't do that. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you further explain why you think it is part of inherited notability? From how I read that section this article seems fine to exist looking at the examples and this part "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." Also seems more than just a product announcement with the Gameplay and Development sections, so for now Keep.--sss333 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say something is notable because it is created by someone or thing that is notable, which is what Lugia2453 did, is claiming that it is notable by association or inheritance. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yoshi video games. Not enough information to hold an article, not needed until more is known. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Is Wikipedia not a free resource? Besides, pages like Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, Call of Duty: Black Ops II, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Halo: Reach and currently Destiny (video game) and even Upcoming Super Smash Bros. video game has or started out with significantly less information than what Yarn Yoshi currently has. I call bias on this one. Why was none of these hundereds of articles considered for deletion/redirect and one that better qualifies than most is? Even Black Ops II started as an article with complete speculation, and didn't even get nominated. The current revision of Yarn yoshi has none whatsoever. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and those articles at least have/had significant information and plenty of sources. This article is pathetic. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 05:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blake is absolutely right. At least with the Upcoming Smash Bros. of which I've maintained pretty much since it's creation, was brought to AFD twice, and was only kept because there was so much coverage on the title, even when the game was first announced. There was a detailed "Iwata Asks" article released pretty much right after it was announced, so there were things to put in the article. The same cannot be said about Yarn Yoshi. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Yoshi series article. There very little content here, even less than what would seem at first glance. The intro paragraph and Development sections are almost identical, outlining bare bones details like the the date it was announced and who the dev team is, and the Gameplay section seems to be primarily WP:OR-based personal observations based off of someone watching the trailer, as far as I can tell, since there are no sources provided for that part. If you strip it down to the core confirmed information, there really isn't much more than a sentence or two's worth of info, which can be easily be put in the Yoshi article. I'm certain it will be notable, but right now it's just WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate RazorEye saying this is "bias" is a poor excuse to keep this article. I'm saying incubate because as time draws near to the game's release more information will be made available. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:26, 10 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by User:INeverCry. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swagglicious[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of neologisms. —Noiratsi (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This page is not worthy of being a surviving article on Wikipedia for any reason whatsoever. This page should be speedily deleted, instead of go through this discussion stage. I don't know if this would be worthy for keeping even on Wiktionary. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is for articles that meet certain criteria that have been agreed on from past discussions and situations. Do you think this page meets any of those? My feeling was that it probably didn't, which was why I brought it here instead. —Noiratsi (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as unsourced questionable WP:BLP, as well as per WP:NEO and WP:NFT JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmetting[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. The article consists solely of unsourced claims & personal reflections. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of neologisms. —Noiratsi (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the word exists, which I doubt, it will be very limited in use. Not a suitable subject for an article. Another article Stendan by this author is at PROD for similar reasons. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if applicable, or as a second choice, delete as fast as possible per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence of WP:RS coverage, hence it's not notable. Wikipedia doesn't have pages for far more well-known and popular shippings than this: e.g. Harry Potter shipping is discussed in the article on shipping rather than having a Ron-Hermione page, etc. And I don't see any clamor to change this policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in light of recent improvements to the article. Additional consensus is that a possible renaming of the article will be discussed elsewhere. SouthernNights (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of choice[edit]

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

This article is entirely unsourced. The subject is not demonstrated to be a notable term and is not clearly defined in a way that differentiates it from ordinary English usage. The article has not been improved in all the time of its existence. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - There has been much improvement in the article since the AfD was opened. I now recommend keeping the article if its name is changed to "Freedom of choice (economics)" to avoid getting into the many other subjects from Religion to Roe v. Wade to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder that might relate to the title as now stated. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search offers numerous relevant, high quality and reliable sources that firmly establish the notability of this concept. Do you disagree? Speaking of relevant and notable...I'm still waiting for your reply... Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Meh. A quick search offers numerous sources for the term, which are almost certainly not about the concept. See Freedom of choice (disambiguation) for other terms about which a "source" could be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? So there are numerous sources that discuss the term itself...which differs from the concept? Is the article Freedom of choice about the concept or the term? Are you trying to argue that Friedman's book...Free to Choose...is about the term...rather than the concept? Also, are you aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? --Xerographica (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say is that there are numerous sources which discuss the term with numerous distinct meanings, including the three listed then listed in the article. The present lead, however, seems a plausible approach. I'm not convinced that it can be expanded past a dictionary definition plus OR plus "passages", but I've changed my !vote, to Meh. That being said, I'm not sure the article can be expanded beyond a stub. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does MEH stand for? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Glossary#M has a "Meh" listed, but I'm not clear if or how it applies here. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Articles should be deleted based on WP:POTENTIAL, so arguing that the article "is entirely unsourced" configures WP:ASZ. Since many independent reliable sources can be found with a quick search about this subject, and even an encyclopedic entry, it therefore meets WP:GNG requirements. Note also that freedom of choice is different from choice and free will. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that there is anything here which should be in the WP:POTENTIAL article. Even if I were convinced that there was a potential article, there is nothing here which should be there. As it stands, the three sentences presently in the artcle refer to three different concepts, although the freedom to dispose of (sell) property and the freedom to buy (goods) are closely related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the caveat that the goods or work must be legal (almost) voids the entire concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those problems are now fixed, thanks to you, Hugo. There are a few bytes in common between the status of the article when I made my previous comment yesterday and the status today. There would have been no harm in deleting the article as it was before your edits, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you've ever taken a microeconomics course, this vote is a no-brainer. ResMar 03:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [See below] – User:Hugo Spinelli has provided some quite useful references. The OP's premise is no longer valid. Thank you, Hugo. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Res. This is micro 101. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
Keep sufficiently notable concept.--Staberinde (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but beef it up with more notable sources. CarolMooreDC 17:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not expanded, the content volume (I don't mean word count, I mean "interesting"/ "useful" bits of information) seems to me insufficient to justify a separate article. As a topic, I believe it has potential but needs to be developed. Alternatively, it might be included in an existing article. SteveT (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC) --> struck 04:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "As a topic, I believe it has potential but needs to be developed", please read WP:POTENTIAL. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I read article WP:Potential. If what you were thinking is that it would change my mind with respect to my "vote" to delete, it did not. However, subsequent edits have -- I think its potential is now sufficiently developed to change my vote to "Keep." SteveT (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what WP:POTENTIAL means. I don't understand what made you change your mind, then. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this article is being improved and may be worth effort. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Freedom of choice (economics)" per recommendation of OP. The "(economics)" in the title is vital to distinguishing the article from undefined common usage of the term. Moreover, the rename will preserve the consensus to keep. (ATTN: Administrator – when closing this discussion can you accomplish the rename?) – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The topic of freedom of choice in general has WP:POTENTIAL to be developed further independently of its relevance in economics. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – We've gotta follow the policy of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. If we leave "freedom of choice" bare, we open it up to all kinds of tangents. (For more comments, please see Talk:Freedom_of_choice#Re-Title_article.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific. What kind of tangents do you see in the article? The name itself follows all WP:NAMINGCRITERIA recommendations. If the content does not follow some policy, it can be improved. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I will continue that discussion on the talk page. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo, I agree with Srich on this. Most of what you've added in your recent edits is tangential. There could be separate articles on abortion rights, euthanasia, etc but they are entirely different topics than the economic implications and importance of freedom of choice, as articulated for example by Friedman. The article should not be like a dictionary entry that presents a variety of meanings for the words "Freedom of choice>" The article must be focused on the exposition of a single meaning or theory denoted by the term. We can write additional articles about the other meanings and theories. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved to Talk:Freedom_of_choice#Re-Title_article --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:SPECIFICO, User:Arthur Rubin, User:Srich32977 and User:Turetzsr, given my remarks above and the current state of the article, do you still vote for deleting or renaming the article? Note that a main article, like Choice (economics), for the economic usage of the term might be created without deleting or renaming Freedom of choice. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the article talk page: I don't have any further thoughts on this until I understand where the article is headed or where it is likely to end up. I'm inclined to wait and see what it looks like after you've finished following the ideas you have in mind for it. Meanwhile, if you are able to do so in a sentence or two, could you state why you think there needs to be an article on Freedom of Choice that goes beyond what is conveyed by its meaning in ordinary language and is not covered by other more specific articles such as Free Will, Legal Rights, etc? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't predict how the article will end up in the future. My edits were just an effort to prove WP:POTENTIAL. I'm disappointed that I haven't convinced you yet. I thought including some references would prove that the topic is notable and worthy of an entry on WP. Maybe it isn't of your interest, but I'm sure a lot of people will find it helpful and maybe with future collaboration of some experts it will become a good article. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think I may not have been clear. I changed my vote long ago from delete to rename. I still don't see why there would be an article on an English phrase, but if it goes in a certain direction it can be renamed. I had thought it was going in the direction of economic significance of choice, what with Milton Friedman and all. If it goes in another direction, it will need to be renamed to reflect that. I don't see a catch-all for the English phrase being an article topic, but that can be sorted out after there is a better-defined article to evaluate. There's no reason to shut-down its evolution. It can be renamed or deleted at a later date. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I still don't see why there would be an article on an English phrase" By the same reason there are articles for Freedom of assembly, Freedom of association, I don't have any further thoughts on this until I understand where the article is headed or where it is likely to end up. I'm inclined to wait and see what it looks like after you've finished following the ideas you have in mind for it. Meanwhile, if you are able to do so in a sentence or two, could you state why you think there needs to be an article on Freedom of Choice that goes beyond what is conveyed by its meaning in ordinary language and is not covered by other more specific articles such as Free Will, Legal Rights, etc? Thanks., Freedom of information, Freedom of movement, Freedom of the press, Freedom of religion, Freedom of speech and Freedom of thought. What is so different about Freedom of choice that it does not deserve being an article topic? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that terms such as "Freedom of assembly" have a specific legal or cultural context and meaning. That one is in the US Constitution. Similarly, "Freedom of information" refers to a specific legal issue in many nations. "Freedom of choice" is not like that. The verb "to choose" is transitive. The object must be stated. When the object is not stated, as in "Freedom of choice" it is intrinsically ambiguous. If the meaning is not made clear and specific, the article will read more like a dictionary recitation of meanings. Looking at the list of current articles with "Freedom" in their titles, I expect some, among them for example Freedom of education to be deleted in the future. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Freedom of choice, not "Freedom to choose". Please read the first reference of the article, it addresses your concerns. It's a whole article dedicated to discuss the definition of "freedom of choice", including what "choice" means in this context. "Looking at the list of current articles with "Freedom" in their titles, I expect some, among them for example Freedom of education to be deleted in the future" you are being WP:OVERZEALOUS, don't start a deletionism war on good articles. It will not help improving WP. Abuse of unnecessary deletion requests are damaging to the reputation of the article for at least a week, discourages editors to continue contributing and might configure WP:BURO. Help improve the articles instead. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the consensus is to keep. Once this AfD is closed, let's consider alternatives. The basic difficulty is what follows or precedes "choice". Its' gotta have a "freedom to choose ..." or "freedom of choice in ...". Consider, why is Freedom a DAB page, and why don't we have a Freedom of or Freedom to page? Because we can't nail down "freedom of ..." or "freedom to ..." without the object, as in "freedom of religion, the press, speech, etc." Each of these freedoms necessarily involves choice. Consider, isn't freedom of religion the same as choice of religion, and freedom of thought is basically choice of thought? When we exercise some freedom or some choice, we are making a decision to do or not do such & such. Those infinite number of choices keept the bare Freedom of choice article from a discrete topic. Sure, it has POTENTIAL, only it has too much potential. That's why, when the AfD is closed, we gotta narrow the article subject down IAW NAMINGCRITERIA. (Also, SPECIFICO is helping to improve -- he's just pushing on the other side of the WP:POLE. – S. Rich (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC) PS: I am not suggesting that either of you is a POV pusher. That is considered to be an uncivil comment and I don't want my referral to the essay to be see as such! – S. Rich (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first reference of the article, it addresses many of your concerns. As for Freedom being a DAB page, it is because, used in a broad sense, it is the same as Liberty, but notice that Liberty isn't a DAB. You could say "liberty of what?", "liberty to what?" but, as far as I know, there is no WP policy being violated here. And notice also that Liberty is rated as Top-importance on two WP projects. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot infer a decision about "Freedom of choice" by discussing "Liberty." That is argumentum ad whatever. -- probably this one SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What?? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assume that the article will be kept. The best place discuss topic is on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that renaming it to Freedom of choice (economics) will have the same effect as deleting it. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps so. But that decision can be made during a proposal to rename. It will help all concerned editors if we can close this discussion with a simple "Keep" and then move on. Your concerns can be fully addressed at that point. In the meantime, continue to work on the existing article. – S. Rich (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, flagging it to be renamed is too damaging to the article's reputation for the issue to be addressed later. Do you mind pointing out under what WP's policy you think the contents not concerning economics should be deleted? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the article is not "flagged" for anything other than the current proposed deletion. And this discussion will "unflag" it as soon as it is closed. Subsequently a new discussion may arise about renaming the article with an eye on economics. If that occurs, a new article about "freedom of choice", that addresses the larger, non-economics, philosophical aspects, can be developed. In the alternative, a new article about Freedom of choice (economics) can be developed. (Would you object to having both articles?) More importantly, for your contributions to WP, please consider that we work by WP:CONSENSUS. If there is community consensus on an issue, we live with the consensus and seek to improve the articles. "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia,..." And with that in mind, there is no policy to point out to you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed that. I said that the article Choice (economics) should be created, that some of the content of Choice#Choice and evaluability in economics should be moved to it and that that section and Freedom of choice#In Economics should have Choice (economics) as their main article. No one responded to that suggestion. I don't have plans to do that myself, because I would have to begin a new research to find reliable sources to notability issues, it would start another deletionism war, another week of debating... it would take too much time and effort. But besides all of that, Freedom of choice should not be renamed, especially with you having "no policy to point out to". --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy to point to – WP:CONSENSUS. With that policy in mind, how about this? We all stop this mulberry bush AfD discussion. The AfD will close with a keep. FOC gets expanded upon. A new article, FOC (economics) gets started (because others have said above it is microeconomics 101). Economics aspects of FOC and Choice get stripped out/pared down and placed in the FOC (economics) article leaving brief synopses and "See main" hatnotes in both FOC & Choice. (Gad, Choice certainly needs improvement! Consider this paragraph from the article: "Personal factors determine food choice. They are... [1-14].") This way FOC stays within the purview of Liberty, Choice stays within metaphysics & decision theory, and FOC (economics)/Choice (economics) stays within the purview of economics. – S. Rich (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we have reached consensus as to not delete the article. Also, the users that suggested that the article should be renamed seem to be willing to discuss this issue outside this AfD discussion. With that in mind, I think this discussion can be closed with keep as its result. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know WP:BURO, but what's the harm of letting the AfD stay open the full 7 days? I agree that a consensus to deleted will not develop, but violating this arbitrary rule leads to drama. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, assume good faith. I didn't know that it should be kept by 7 days. Another AfD was up for more than that, so I thought it was a flexible or arbitrary decision. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. No, 7 days is the minimum except in case of WP:SNOW or speedy deletions. (I believe the justification is that some users only sign on once a week.) I recall a cotraversial AfD which was closed after 6 days 14 hours, and DRV (Deletion Review) / ANI discussion took another 9 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn - moved to userspace. (non-admin closure) MJ94 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Software for Learning and Research[edit]

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

Poorly written article that would need a substantial rewrite and layout cleanup to read less like an essay. At this time, the article is not written from a neutral point of view and promotes certain applications. The author mentioned to me on Commons that the article was written specifically for a school project. MJ94 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--- Leo, Yes, this article was written for a school project but I do not see this to be a reason for deletion. A lot of fellow students ask me about the software that I use for studying and I thought that it would benefit society to have an article written on it.

As for poor writing, I apologize if it may appear to look poor. Of course, to a proffesional wikidedian, a begginer's work may look poor. I humbly apoologize that my writing skills are not up to your standards. However, I tried very hard to make it look and sound professional. Please kindly do not delete the article, but instead encourage improvement.

I also tried to make it sound as neutral as possible. I never said that any piece of software "is the best". I merely stated their existence and what one can do with them. As for completion, the list may not be complete, but it is a start. I encourage anyone to add to the article.

Please kindly point out any parts of the article that are particularly poorly written or have a particular bad pov, and I will try my best to edit and improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoUfimtsev (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics. SouthernNights (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sidharth Kaul[edit]

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

Neither this person nor his work are the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources, thus failing WP:BASIC and WP:ACADEMIC. His accomplishments also clearly fail WP:ANYBIO. The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES give either passing mention or none at all; several sources are related to this subject and don't count toward notability, and they generally fail to actually support the claims made in the article. Even when the subject is mentioned more than once, the actual topic of coverage (what the subject is talking about) is not himself, but something different. This article is also blatant promotion of one among many similar non-notable individuals in the coverage given; see also Rajni Kaul (his wife) for an indication of connected promotional pages. JFHJr (㊟) 17:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've had this one on my watchlist for a long time because I thought it should be deleted but I didn't have the initiative to nom it myself. Thanks. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to clarify if you want ti keep or delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Google scholar finds nothing significant: 3 papers, cited 13, 3, and 1 times DGG (at NYPL) 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Delete - Apart from the fact that there seems to be nothing obvious out there which makes this person notable, the article was created by a person bearing his daughter's name, mentioned in the article. She also created an article on her mother, Rajni Kaul, which is also on the AfD pages at the moment. That is the sum total of her contributions to Wikipedia. WP:COI and WP:NPOV are both issues as well. The background of the family, whether distinguished or not, is irrelevant. Notability is not inherited.--Zananiri (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. not enough yet to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I'm sure his daighter is justly proud of her father's accomplishments but they just don't appear to meet our standards for articles about academics. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis article was created by his daughter to promote the entire family members. She also created the page of herself Nimisha Kaul, brother Neelaksh Kaul, and mother Rajni Kaul. Strongly recommend the deletion of the page, as the notability of the person not observed.Jussychoulex (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajni Kaul[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Nominator Jussychoulex (talk · contribs) did not properly complete the AfD steps. I will allow that user to make an argument on xis own if xe desires; my vote is below. JFHJr (㊟) 17:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. She is one of hundreds of non-notable members of Indian Council of Medical Research. The text from this article appears to be a wholesale WP:COPYVIO of the non-third-party source (an unreliable source for notability). This article appears to be unambiguous promotion, but edit history appears to have rejected WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD. JFHJr (㊟) 17:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few publications, mostly not listed in Google Scholar at all; there are other people by that name, so a plain author search doesn't do it. DGG (at NYPL) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
Delete I did a more thorough composite search with co-authors listed by the article using WoS, which turned up 4 papers having a total citation count of 2 (h-index 1). Agricola44 (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Ray^Talk 02:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I echo JFHJr's comments above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per Wikipedia criteria. The article was created by her daughter, who is mentioned by name in the article she also created on her father, Sidharth Kaul, which is also on the AfD pages at the moment. Seems to be a case of promoting family interests rather than proven notability.--Zananiri (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Coombs[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because he is not the topic of coverage by multiple reliable sources, and also fails WP:ARTIST because he has made no apparently significant contribution or impact to any genre, and he has not been a substantial part of any significant exhibition or gained a permanent place in any collection of a notable museum. Going through WP:BEFORE, I find coverage mostly like this (organizer and participant in nudes event — three showings total, no substantial coverage of Coombs), this (one of 34 in the Saatchi collection; no indication of critical importance of Saatchi, zero particular importance indicated for Coombs within this group), and this (the sole example of substantial coverage of Coombs by a reliable source). Note, one apparent source doesn't even mention Coombs, and another is published by Saatchi. Otherwise, this subject garners mostly passing mention in rather reliable sources and slightly more coverage in unreliable ones. Although not a reason to delete, the existence of this article might be explained in the edit history, which includes indicia of WP:OWN and very likely WP:COI. JFHJr (㊟) 17:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comprehensive explanation by nom. Notability hasn't yet been established, and thus far relies on peripheral mention, references to commercial gallery publications and a single review in The Independent. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Agnostic I just saw this on the BLP Noticeboard and decided to try to shape it up. In the end, if the best I can do still fails WP:N, so be it. David in DC (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — While The FRED is a good source to show the exhibition of this person's works (WP:ARTIST, however not permanent), the gallery that chose to host his works is clearly also interested in promoting them, so I don't think the source is additive as far as "substantial coverage" because it isn't by an "unrelated party" (WP:BASIC). JFHJr (㊟) 18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The commercial gallery link is not a reliable source for establishing notability--what would work would be such a link to a solo museum exhibition, or published commentary from museum directors or curators or notable scholars. Re: David in DC's comment: one never need explain the good work of legitimate research on behalf of a subject. Cheers, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I don't see a review on Artnet [1] as constituting a reliable source. Here, too, we're still amassing one or two sentence mentions. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Safiel (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, My agnosticism has faded. At least five published works of art criticism in two art periodicals in recent years. Three of wikinotable artists. I think his early career as a Brit Pack painter and Charles Saatchi-championed artist, and Paul Hasegawa-Overacker's artnet.com praise --- after all, how many artists can claim to be Paul Hasegawa-Overacker's second favorite YBA, at least for one exhibit? :) --- plus his work as an art critic, may scrape by on WP:GNG. Of course, there's also the possibility that I've developed Stockholm Syndrome. David in DC (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm leaning toward Stockholm ;). I've published dozens of essays on famous artists in respectable publications, but that alone won't make me notable as a writer. Now, I think Mr. Coombs is an excellent writer, but I don't yet see indications that the periodicals are particularly notable, nor that his writing has received notice elsewhere--merely publishing isn't enough. Nor is it clear that mention by Paul Hasegawa-Overacker on Artnet constitutes notability--I'd venture not. All of that strikes me as add-on to the main premise that requires support--notability as an artist--and thus far even the connection to Saatchi as one of dozens in the last wave of YBAs isn't terribly robust. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

Delete per nom. HereFord 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JFHJr clearly has gone into a lot of detail on this AfD and it clearly shows a lack of notability. This is compounded by the fact it appears to be a self-made article. iComputerSaysNo 01:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary[edit]

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

Recommend deletion due to lack of established notability provided through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. While at first glance, it appears that the organization meets the general notability guidelines, the sources provided are actually about the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary and the legal difficulties which that organization has encountered. While some of this content may be merged to the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary article, much of it is inflammatory in nature. In essence, this article primarily exists to disparage the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary and thereby lend credence to the Movement organization that formed to primarily "cleanup" the Sanctuary and the alleged mismanagement therein. Cindy(talk to me) 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an attack against a man named Ralph Heath and is full of violations of our policy on biographies of living people. It contains links to unreliable sources such as blog posts and videos. It makes no pretense of following the neutral point of view. This article's point of view is that Ralph Heath is a very bad man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack piece. The allegations are a matter for judicial process. If proved, they might be briefly referred to the main article, but until they are WP should not be used to promote them. As Cullen says, there are so many violations of policy and guidelines here that it is unnecessary to list them all, but I would add WP:COATRACK. --AJHingston (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article details state and federal investigations regarding the management of funds. The matters regarding the federal and state investigations have received their rulings and are not in question. Those investigations and their rulings are not an attack, they are facts. There is a link to one blog, the blog for the Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary which is what this page is about to begin with. The videos are of local investigative news reports and are NOT unreliable sources and show within them, THEIR proof and sources the direct links to which are not available or in any other format to be linked to here. As this page is only one day old of course edits are still needed, but deletion is uncalled for. Nowhere does it state that Ralph Heath is a bad man, however it does indicate actions known in the community and backed up by witnesses and video which necessitated the Movement in the first place. It would make no sense to talk about a movement for change without detailing the reasons why such a movement exists. Nothing stated in the article is personal opinion. The investigations launched by federal and state agencies are not personal opinions, they are facts. The existence of the yacht bought and upgraded with sanctuary money is not a personal opinion it is a fact. The photos taken of underage girls on the Sanctuary propery are not personal opinion, they are facts. No matter how you detail these facts, one can project that the fact that they are being detailed to begin with is not "neutral" but that is not the case. Facts are facts. Remove the link to the blog for the Movement for Change, or to any questionable language but the videos, if you watched them, you would see are not unreliable sources. Forthebirds1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthebirds1 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Forthebirds, this specific article is not about the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary, as we already have such an article. Instead it is about the "Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary". In order for this article to exist on Wikipedia, the specific topic "Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary" must be notable, which can be summarized as a topic that has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I see no coverage in reliable sources of the ""Movement for Change at Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary". All I see is a Facebook page, which is neither reliable nor independent. Accordingly, the topic of this article is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and the article should be deleted. I do not dispute that some of the sources in the article are reliable, but they are sources describing problems at the sanctuary, not this "movement". In addition, I do not dispute the severity of the problems, but that does not justify creating a Wikipedia article about a "movement" that is not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. We expect that every article on Wikipedia be written from the neutral point of view and the article fails that test. It may well be that some of this material belongs in the main article about the sanctuary, but that article ought to be about the entire 40 year history of the organization, and not just its most recent chapter. Any discussion of this controversy in that article must be written in a neutral fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete The subject itself lacks significant media coverage and is not notable. The article is being used as a soapbox to air the group's grievances. Dloh cierekim 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the extensive list of criticisms of the Sanctuary and made the ref's more co:ncise. Ref' are local coverage of the subject in passing with greater local coverrage of the problems at the sanctuary.] I am unable to locate more than a passing reference to the subject, nothing beyond passing references in local coverage. Dloh cierekim 17:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant, sourced, not WP:UNDUE content to Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary. Reliably-sourced content on issues at the SSS and reponses to same is worth mentioning in that article; having an individual article that is essentially a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS piece is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material I so carefully removed has been reintroduced. It is not relevant to the article subject, merely an attack against the Seabird Sanctuary.the third sentence of this version with relevant links might be of service. A delete merge is what I recommend. Dloh cierekim 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think a delete/merge is the best course of action here. While the Movement organization does not meet the threshold for notability, the reliably sourced content could be retained, while removing any undue attacks against the Sanctuary. Cindy(talk to me) 19:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Takis K. Evangelides[edit]

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

I can't find sources to verify how this individual meets notability. I PROD'd it a long time ago, but it was contested/removed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick search has turned up hardley anything notable relating to the article. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Not notable. I couldn't turn up any reliable sources indicating notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Mellor[edit]

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

I am unconvinced that being mentioned in a couple of national media stories circa 2007-2008 is sufficient grounds for notability according to our policies and guidelines. (She is not really the subject of the articles concerned, so I think "mentions" is a fairer description.) TheGrappler (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - coverage in national news sources, but as you say, not particularly substantially so. Probably fails WP:BIO. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of general coverage, there is also no substantial evidence that she did anything relevant to the feminist movement context. Even though she is a member of a notable company or organization, notability is not inherit spirally downwards or upwards, twice a mention in the Daily Telegraph is also NOT notable enough to pass GNG, she needs more coverage, also the articles are only mention, not about her. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We've been through this before, anybody who has come to the attention of the national media on a number of occasions over a number of years is notable. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there are enough sources to be notable. The first Telegraph article has a few quotes, but interviews aren't considered reliable sources where people are quoted without evidence of fact-checking. The second Telegraph article only has a small section which largely repeats the first article. Possibly Shoreditch WI could be mentioned in a more general article on Women's Institutes or knitting, but Mellor herself wouldn't be getting coverage if it wasn't for her father's identity, and notability isn't inherited. Unknown Unknowns mentions coverage over a number of years, but I'd expect that to mean more than 24 April 2008-16 May 2009, and the coverage still has to be substantial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Carolina Council of State elections, 2012. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Goldman[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Being a member of a school board and a failed statewide candidate is insufficient to establish WP:POLITICIAN notability. Other possible grounds for notability are lacking: having the NAACP denounce you does not make one a major figure. The burglary and the reaction from the other candidate is interesting (and possibly violative of WP:BLP), but is not of lasting effect. GrapedApe (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Salacious gossip in the article presents BLP concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree this subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. I also agree with Cullen's BLP concerns, and with Graped in that the problematic coverage isn't additive to notability anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 19:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom and Cullen328: fails WP:POLITICIAN criteria. --Noleander (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to North Carolina Council of State elections, 2012. I think it is better practice to redirect to an election page rather than to outright delete an entry. Enos733 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete miserably fails WP:POLITICIAN. Redirection to the 2012 council of state election isn't necessary either RadioFan (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Carolina Council of State elections, 2012; subject has received significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources, however the coverage is primarily related to the event which is the election which the subject was a candidate. As a candidate, the subject is not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore, per WP:BLP1E the article regarding the subject should be redirected to the event.

Alternately the article can be redirected to Wake County Public School System, as she is a board member of the organization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete/A7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 16:46, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

George Giles (actor)[edit]

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

Non notable juvenile actor. Article is also likely autobiography. NtheP (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps even speedy delete per A7? Ezhuks (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --DVD seller (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Carolina Council of State elections, 2012. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Tedesco[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Being a member of a school board and a failed statewide candidate is insufficient to establish WP:POLITICIAN notability. Other possible grounds for notability are lacking: Giving a speech at a rally or having the NAACP denounce you does not make one a "major tea party" figure. GrapedApe (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable Calqwatch (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails the notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Yes, it seems like electioneering and hasn't held statewide office or anything higher than school board, but has generated some recognition. And Wake County is one of the largest counties in NC, so it isn't just like any other school board out there. I would say delete completely because he does fail WP:POLITICIAN to me too, but then my AfD of Scott Keadle wound up as no consensus. Seems similar. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, hasn't risen above the level of county school board member RadioFan (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Carolina Council of State elections, 2012. Some of the information in the article could be added to the elections page. Enos733 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Carolina Council of State elections, 2012 or Wake County Public School System; subject does not appear to be individually notable per WP:ANYBIO or WP:POLITICIAN, but the subject is an elected member of the Wake County Board of Education. If there is a section about the board, a redirect to that section could be seen as appropriate. If the primary notability of the subject is the statewide election, it is common that a redirect to the statewide election be left in the article space. Plus, redirects are cheaper than deletions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Olde English Bulldogge. Without prejudice to merger to a more general article. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge[edit]

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

Not mentioned anywhere in google books or google scholar. Other results are for breeders or user-contributed sites TKK ^{bark !} 03:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep from author: The article is about a notable breed, as sourced in the footnotes, but the unusual spelling with "Olde Tyme" limits searches about the Dorset bulldogs. I have added a source, today, from Google Books to the article, but found spelled as "Dorset Old Thyme..." not quite matching the archaic spelling. The subject of niche breeds of bulldogs is limited, although there are hundreds of dog-breed webpages which do mention the Dorsets. Hence, I advise to keep. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Google Books isn't the sole arbiter of knowledge, but nor is one website reprinting the breeder's own photos adequate sourcing. A breed developed "in the late 1980s", yet one of the two books cited as refs was published before this, in 1985? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bulldog. If I remember correctly, this breed was criticised for over-inbreeding, producing some highly undesirable characteristics. The stated intention (as I understand it) is to change the breed characteristics gradually so that breeders will get rid of the unhealthy ones. The name is ludicrous since it is reverting to pre-Johnson spelling. Victorian and modern spelling are similar. Has this breed been recognised by the Kennel Club? I presume not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, I don't think any of these points can have any relevance to this issue. A ludicrous ye olde worlde spelling for an inbred freak is no bar, per WP:ENGVAR, and I doubt if the Kennel Club carries much weight either. However is any adequate attention being paid by any RS bodies? That's all we need, but I'm not even finding that much. There's the breeder's own coverage and blog/forum discussion of it, but nothing RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 1 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge to bulldog or delete -- certainly do not keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge to a suitable "Restored bulldog" article, as distinct from Bulldog in general. I'm convinced that the efforts to recreate an "original" bulldog are notable, and sufficiently distinct from Bulldog, just not that every single breeder's own efforts in this direction are adequately distinct. A possible target might be Olde English Bulldogge, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to say if this one is itself the most substantial. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merge to a "Restored bulldog" (or similarly-titled) article. There are numerous projects similar to this which, if they aren't notable enough to have their own article like the Olde English Bulldogge, are certainly notable enough to have a section in a larger work. --TKK ^{bark !} 02:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mediran (t • c) 01:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian cricket league[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket competition. Unreferenced and fails WP:CRIN. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - to quote a comment from the previous AfD "since it's a "national, first level league" in a major team sport." In terms of sources, [2] still exists from that previous AfD. Just because the league has only 4 teams does not mean it is not a national, first level league (even if those teams are all Talinn-based). In fact, it's possible that 7 teams compete in this league:[3] (if you discount the bit that appears to have been pulled from the Wiki article). Mention of the league is also present here:[4][5]. Note these are all (bar the one pulled from the previous AfD) English-language sources; it's quite possible, indeed probable, that there will be more coverage in Estonian sources, but I do not understand the language. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Dean[edit]

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

Cricketer who fails WP:CRIN as has not played at first-class, List A or Twenty20 level. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PM's XI game in which he played was against a National Team (West Indies) falls within required definition of 'major cricket'. The definition uses the word "includes' not 'exclusive to' first-class, List A or Twenty20, then adds: "Historically, major cricket includes first-class, List A, single wicket and other forms in which players and/or teams of a recognised high standard are taking part." The current West Indies may not be the highest ever standard team from that country but the team they selected for teh PM's match was close to their highest standard fro that form of the game. Other measures of notability- Subsequent reported praise in national papers by former Test captain Ponting. Significant presence in national media after the game. Is captain of the Premier Team in ACT. Has scored second highest run total in ACT cricket history.121.127.197.101 (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the deprodder, I've been thinking over this one for a couple of days, because it isn't clear either way. I don't really think the "other forms" comment is really meant for modern "exhibition games", which is what the PM's XI is. And hence, by the WP:CRIN guideline, he isn't notable. But he's from Canberra. They simply don't have any CRIN-compliant "major cricket" played there any more. The Canberra Comets, which Dean captains, play in the 2nd level Futures League, and that is the highest level of cricket he can play in, without moving. Every other player in that league, if they perform well, could represent their state at List-A or First-Class level. If he lived anywhere else in the world, he'd easily be good enough to play in the ICC World Cup Qualifiers or equivalent. Sure, he could move to Sydney or anywhere else in Australia, but there isn't much money at the lower end of the cricketing tree, so without knowing his family/work situation, this may or may not be possible (I admit this lack of knowledge about him outside of cricket could be considered part of a delete argument). So, he's been selected in a national representative (but not a "major cricket" game, performed very well in it and received a lot of coverage for it. Is that enough for WP:GNG, or is that just WP:BLP1E? He's been 12th man for the PMs XI before, back in 2008, and he's been a supplementary player for the Perth Scorchers and the Melbourne Renegades, but didn't get a game. After all that, I think this is a Weak Keep, based on the WP:GNG coverage of his 5,000 runs, 51 for the PM XI and 300 in a day, ruling out BLP1E. Hopefully, he will get a chance next year with a BBL team and clear the CRIN hurdle, but as CRIN says, it is "merely rules of thumb" and "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". The-Pope (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man is very famous in the sport and notable! Calqwatch (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So famous in the sport that he hasn't progessed to first-class level. There is precedent for deleting Prime Minister's XI/non-List A Canberra players here and here. Yes, playing for Canberra is the highest level of cricket in Canberra, but you could then compare it to Grade Cricket, we don't permit articles on grade cricketers. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRIN and because of the above mentioned precedents. Jevansen (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The PM's XI match is used by the Australian selection panel as a testing ground for future test and Australian one day players. The game is always against national sides. It qualifies as "major cricket" as per the definition.NimbusWeb (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani field hockey players[edit]

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

Unsourced and mistitled. This is not a list of Pakistani field hockey players worldwide, it is a list of players for the Pakistani national field hockey team. It is also unsourced, and both the ELs (now removed) are dead. The notable players have articles and are listed in Pakistan Hockey Federation, and the rest can't even be substantiated. MSJapan (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i'hv checked & update this list earlier. the main source on the web of this article was the official web page of Pakistan Hockey Federation somehow the site is down now may be due to some technical reasons..... but its a official web site & also the main source of many other articles related to Pakistan field Hockey i think we need to wait for it. i guess this article need to improve & also need some good sources only rather than deletion. puting the tag of AfD is not a solution. anyway i'hv added 2 more ref. & i'hv returnd the official web page link also. & yeah the title should be more specific like "List of Pakistan's Internetional Field Hockey Players" etc... Keep or Merge it with Pakistan Hockey Federation or other related article. Peace Out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crown Prince (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Endless, useless list of "players" segregated for no other reason than supposed place of birth/national origin/locale theoretically played. Invites endless lists of "Vegetarian field hockey players", "Field hockey players from the Bronx with nipple piercings", "Exploding Whales who once played field hockey", etc, etc.. Sources appear to be just lists themselves and fail WP:SOURCES, with Pakistan_Hockey_Federation linking back to Wikipedia itself Ren99 wha? 00:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy doesn't hold. Sportspeople are routinely classified by their nationality, but not by their dietary habits or body ornamentation, or even by a combination of biological order and mode of destruction. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post some links to proof of citizenship so there's something to attest to (passport or birth certificate should do ok, otherwise everything pretty much links back to Wikipedia - aka - here and is of little value for sourcing). I got a dozen Aleutian Exploding Whales & Globsters wanna get in on the lists before there's a rush for the goal line... Ren99 wha? 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This needs a rename as these are limited to members of the national team. Each should, I presume, qualify individually under notability guidelines, making this a useful navigational device and marker for future articles to be created. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on, people, we are talking about the Pakistan team here. Seriously, WP needs to be careful, as an international encyclopedia, to avoid overt cultural bias, and maintain consistency in its guidelines. The criteria for notability in other sports is much lower than this, so we can assume notability and it is a valid and relevant list. --AJHingston (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete, this list has no encyclopedic value, a category suffices, its content is not easily verifiable, it is full of red links, even though this doesnt prove notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Someone above said that the only source is down, how funny it is, in wikipedia we need a multitude of source to back the facts that are told in the actual article. If not so, someone needs to archive the sources to prevent such issues, but even though the notability factor is ridiculously limited in here because there is no way to verify it as there is no third party coverage for the names in this list. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No content. WP:A3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé's Fifth Studio Album[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER, without prejudice to be started again once details are available. Shirt58 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Even if there was more than an infobox and 3 sentences it should still be deleted for this reason Till 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest grossing Tamil films[edit]

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

Official box office records are not kept in Tamil Nadu, they cannot be traced. The figures listed here bank on highly unnotable sites such as superwoods.com, accesskollywood.com and kollyinsider.com. This page was deleted once before for exactly the same reason. Johannes003 (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons stated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be subjective or editor-cherry-picked values and is apparent long-term magnet for edit-warring among them. We already have this problem at damn near every Tamil film article themselves, don't need to do it here too and have them not even agree with each other (Wikidata would be helpful in that regard). DMacks (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Disputandi[edit]

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

Article about an online journal with no sources at all except one merely showing that such a thing exists. This is a far cry from the multiple, independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that is required in order to have a Wikipedia article DreamGuy (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Peer-reviewed academic journal published by a university press. St Anselm (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am on the fence on this one. The argument given by StAnselm is not at all policy based: no guideline says that it is enough for a journal to be notable just because it is peer-reviewed and/or published by a university press and I would personally oppose a guideline that would state something like that as too permissive. On the other hand, the journal is indexed in the ATLA database (I just added this info to the article), which is, I think, one of the major databases in its field. I refrain from !voting at this point, as this still is a bit meager, perhaps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anselm. The independent sources in the article do not just that it exists but also that it is as it says it is - an independent peer reviewed journal published by an academic press. JASpencer (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody disputes that the journal is what it claims to be, but as I already stated above, that is not a valid argument for a !vote. I saw the EL that you added to the article, which is potentially more important. What kind of website is this? I got the impression that it is user-contributed, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Do you know more about it? --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination for deletion is wholly without merit. The article is about an academic, peer-reviewed journal of philosophy published by a major university. Wikipedia has scads of theses articles, and they are useful to the reader. The fact that this journal, like other academic journals, is cited by other scholars demonstrates its (and their) notability. See many other similar articles in the category "Philosophy journals". There is no more reason to delete this article than there is to delete any other article in that category, or in any category of academic journals. FYI, as a matter of disclosure, I am the creator of the article. Mamalujo (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The more I see !votes like this, the more I start to think that there is actually no notability here. None of your arguments are policy based: WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:USEFUL, etc. --Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must make the point that none of the "keep" opinions above demonstrates any ars disputandi, making points that are totally irrelevant to the question at issue here. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:V#Notability, part of a core policy, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The merits of the article subject, such as being an academic, peer-reviewed journal, are irrelevant in light of that policy. Sandstein 08:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per my above-stated reasoning. --Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 10 February 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to warrant keeping it around. Being an independent peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it notable. Looking at the comments, they resort to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:USEFUL, and WP:INHERITED (this one based on the fact that a major university publishes it). I shall refer you to WP:INN and WP:EDPN. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found:

The journal gets 370 hits at WorldCat and getting hits at WorldCat is relevant per WP:NJOURNAL criterion 1; I'd claim that 370 locations for a journal in a low-profile specialized discipline like philosophy of religion is quite a lot and indicates the journal is influential.
As mentioned in the article, the journal is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, itself a notable database in the field of religion. ATLA is selective of which journals they index on the basis of scholarly merit.
It is on a short list of journals discussed in the Philosophy of Religion: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide
Google Scholar has about 870 hits while Google Scholar isn't considered reliable, it gives some indication that this journal has citations.

In the ars disputandi of AfD, policy is what matters. Here I think the good number of hits in WorldCat satisfies criterion 1 in WP:NJOURNAL and the indexing in ATLA also contributes to satisfying criterion 1. If criterion 1 of WP:NJOURNAL is satisfied, then article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that someone with a bit of the relevant ars has put forward valid argument for keeping this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all respect for Mark's efforts, but I am less impressed by the WorldCat figures than he is. Ars Disputandi is n open access journal and many libraries maintain lists of links to those: after all, it doesn't cost them anything. If these 370 locations were all paying libraries, that would be a lot different, but as it is, I think all we still have is only ATLA. --Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mark, you've only found sources. You haven't bothered to add them into the article and expand it. Having sources doesn't guarantee the article will be kept. I'm treading into WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS here, I don't want to do it, but a lot of articles without sources are passed by. I'm a newbie when it comes to this topic of what the journal publishes. Now, there is nothing to tell me who founded it and other pertinent historical back information of this publication. All I know can surmise from the article is the fact it was started in 2001 and it is published at a university in the Netherlands. I find that this being the only information is not suitable to readers who don't know much or anything about the publication or the topic it covers. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that this article is but a stub; it seems most of the academic journal articles I have come across are such. At AfD it is not my responsibility to add to the article, although I sometimes do so. Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion per WP:DEL. At WP:NJournals, under the Caveats section point 2, the journal's homepage may be used as a source for uncontroversial information. Admittedly, WP:NJournals is an essay, not an official policy, but it seems to be one that is followed in AfD discussions on academic journals. If the topic is shown to be notable, then development of the stub is considered a surmountable problem (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details) and the article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets the notability guideline, as it is included in the major selective database in the subject. Nothing more needs actually to be shown. The supplemental information that it is in almost 400 worldcat libraries is however relevant, as it is very high for a subject like this. Most journal articles are stubs, and there is no reason why a stub cannot persist indefinitely.; however, this like most of them can be expanded, with at least a list of the most cited articles or most notable authors. I'm a little confused about the information not being helpful to readers: the information that it has been around fro 12 years, that it is published by a major university, and indexed in a major database, that it is in all major libraries n its field, gives the information that it is a serious academically recognized journal, that it is available on open access with a CC-ATT license, and a highly reliable source for WP purposes, and that material published there can be included here freely if attribution is given --and also used as a RS for other purposes, such as a reference in a school paper. WP is an encyclopedia, and this is the sort of information someone would look for here about a journal., (as distinct from whatever self-advertising the journal might wish to give, or information which would be useful only to those who might want to contribute papers--those types of information we remove from journal articles). DGG (at NYPL) 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
Keep per DGG. Included in major databse in the field. However, I would like to make one comment: I agree that the article could be expanded with, say, the three most-cited articles it has published, because we have objective criteria for that # of citations). A list of notable authors, unless we can find a reliable source discussing authors in this journal (small chance...) would just be some editor's opinion of who are the most notable authors here and be inadmissible OR. I also maintain that the WorldCat counts are rather meaningless for an OA journal, as explained above. --Randykitty (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, and if not that, then Ignore All Rules. Having an article on a university published peer-reviewed journal that is widely cataloguied serves the needs of our readers. Who are we serving, the rules or the readers? First Light (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the subject only existing for a short time, it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. The time frame argument also lacks support because other similar subjects, such as the California Republic, also existed for short spans of time. SouthernNights (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Kurdistan[edit]

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

I put forward the Deletion of the article WP:Stub of the so called ”Kingdom of Kurdistan” for the following reasons:

As there has never been an actual state called Kingdom Kurdistan, with any designated borders, government, institutions, diplomatic relation, ceremony, inauguration or a proclamation of a Kurdish “King” based any sufficient and credible sources to state otherwise. This article has severe issues with verifiability see WP:VERIFY the very few and limited references to sources are simply not enough to turn tribal rebellions, which have been put down in to an “unrecognized” Kingdom. In case one needs to point out to Kurdish Rebellions there are designated Wikipedia pages for that, there is no point to make something out of nothing just to get it visibile into the Internet domain via Wikipedia.
This article lacks notability see WP:IMPORTANCE, the topic and the actual term “Kingdom of Kurdistan” lacks sufficient coverage, the whole article is based on 4 references, which cannot be verified. The mere usage of the term “Kingdom of Kurdistan” here and there does not make it notable enough for a separate article. Wikipedia cannot be an indiscriminate collection of information as this article is just a soapbox WP:SOAP. The simple fact remains that such a place recognised or unrecognised called Kingdom of Kurdistan never factually exisited, perhaps nothing more than a figure of speach refering to the events from the different Kurdish rebellions. Hittit (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing malformed deletion nomination on behalf of User:Hittit. His original nomination rationale is here[6]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The article has existed since 2005 gaining a lot of support at its first AfD in 2006. There has been thoughtful and constructive discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Kurdistan. So, this article should not be discarded without careful thought. It seems to me the problem raised here is mainly with the title, which may well be problematic on grounds of politics and ambiguity. However, I see in Google Books and Scholar sufficient appropriate references to make me think the expression "Kingdom of Kurdistan" is indeed in use in a historical context. Moreover, even the references presently in the article are quite sufficient for notability for a stand-alone article – WP:GEOLAND is clear that places lacking legal recognition may still be notable per WP:GNG. I think editorially it might be wise to merge the article's contents with History of the Kurdish people, Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan and, indeed, Kurdish rebellions. This is far too involved to mandate at AfD which is why I am !voting keep. Any merge should retain attribution so a redirect from here to History of the Kurdish people might be best. Whatever happens, the article should not be merely deleted – it has been written and referenced in a responsible manner and the material needs to continue to be used appropriately. Apologies for my complete ignorance of the subject matter. Thincat (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator's arguments. --E4024 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough sources for this to be a credible article. Josh1024 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Josh. You opened a WP account on 1st February and today you're here; congratulations! Man, it took me months to discover these pages... I think they're waiting for you at the Teahouse in vain. --E4024 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Josh's contribs, he's no newbie SPA even though the account is recently created. Looks to be beyond Teahouse level to me... Peridon (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some new sources and each article doesnt need hundreds of sources. There are enough sources about Kingdom of Kurdistan. That would be strange to delete it.Gomada (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge to Mahmud Barzanji/Mahmud Barzanji revolts. Takabeg (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This topic consists of two events: Mahmud Barzanji revolts and Sheikh Said rebellion; both of which have articles in WP. Thus this article seems to be a duplicate of the first event with two sentences from the second event. I don't think WP needs a duplication Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Flankly, Sheikh Said rebellion is irrelevant topic. Takabeg (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also to point out due to the creation of this stub the term it self "Kingdom of Kurdistan", while being searched in the Internet, is mostly referenced from this bogus Wikipedia article. What happens is that Wikipedia content is being used to generation hits and references and in this case wrongfully so. Hittit (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one of these kingdoms lasted from May to June, that's as long as the Republic of California lasted. The other lasted 11 months or so. Lack of recognition doesn't matter - the unrecognised Somaliland has been going for 12 years or so there while official recognition is given to the anarchic Somalia. I hope I'm wrong in thinking I detect some rather bitter sounds here. It does happen in topics involving Kurds, Armenians, Georgians, Turks, Greeks, Macedonians etc etc. What is needed is attention to facts. Is the content of the article being stated to be false? If the references do not show it to be true, then the article should go. If they do, its future is to be decided as keep or merge. I see no problem with an article containing the same material as two others. We don't allow an article that merely mirrors another. But you can't redirect from one title to two places. Perhaps this title could be used for a disam page to the two 'kings'. Or is it really the 'Kingdom of Kurdistan' that's causing the problem? If it existed (albeit unrecognised) for a month, it existed. Political revisionism is not what Wikipedia's about. Peridon (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peridon, you got the point very well. There is intolerance for the word of Kurdistan. This Kingdom had its own flag, cabinet(government) etc. And the nominator's claims are personal. When Mahmud Barzanji proclaimed himself as King of Kurdistan, it was published in the official newspaper of government, Rojî Kurdistan. In another official newspaper, Bangî Kurdistan,(that was published by Mustafa Yamulki, minister for education in the Kingdom of Kurdistan), Mahmud Barzanji has named as Melîkê or Hikumdarê Kurdistan which means King of Kurdistan. Maybe Kingdom of Kurdistan didnt recognize by Turkish government but that doesnt mean, it didnt exist. There is turkish government in Northern Cyprus more than 30 years and it recognized only by Turkey. So, we should say; no, there is not such government?--Gomada (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are people claiming that they own land on Mars and the Moon, factual evidence is another matter, just to see how distorted this term is you can visit Mahmud Barzanji Wiki article and see that some one has put as his place of birth again = Kingdom of Kurdistan, he must of have been self styled king long before 1922 then (I hope you see my point). The correct historical term for his birth place should have been Ottoman Empire. There are many self styled kings, there was one guy proclaiming him self as the Emperor of the United States. Hittit (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You talk as; you were in the Kingdom of Kurdistan in 1922 and you know all better than everyone, and you despise the situation. As i see, your point is just to be againist. Coz you started with no sources, proclamation, government etc. And now you talk about some mistake in another article. If you care wiki, you could change it until you write here. But dont worry, i did it for you, you can sleep well ;) Gomada (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Again as I said there are no sources supporting existance of a place called Kingdom of Kurdistan (the few sources used are just isolated mentionings from here and there, and derive in some cases from the same author), just reference for Barzanji proclaiming hims self as a self-styled ruler. The facts of the matter relate to Kurdish rebellions or article relating to Barzanji, first supported by Turkey against the British (case of Barzanji) and in later years Kurdish tribal feudals supported by the British agains Turkey. Article is pointles and should be deleted as main contents could be found in Kurdish rebellions articles. Flag of this obscure Kingdom is also bogus, no actual references of it being ever used, just from one source. There seems a general flaw in logic, everytime some Kurds have rebelled these have not actually put up a state, seems these claims are pandemic. There is more logic in creating an article relating to Turco-British conflicts between 1919 - 1931, where Kurdish tribes were part (were in fact used) of a bigger conflict between newly created Republic of Turkey and the British for demarcation and oil fields of Mosul.Hittit (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are your personal claims. There are enough sources and you have said, the flag is bogus. Take a look at here. You just try to impose your idea on us. We dont need it.Gomada (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there is only one source refering to this flag, no others are found + in the pic it does not say if this flag is the Kurd Kingdom flag, could be Barzanjis own rebel flag. Sufficient sources should be provided and preferably from multiple sources, one word there one word here, a single picture without author or clear description. If you state an existence of a Kingdom from 1922 for sure more evidence must be out there to have a credible article. Hittit (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peridon to add, the fact of the matter is that such a place as "Kingdom of Kurdistan" has never exisited, any reference to this come from only few weak sources, that are possible corrupt by refences where Barzanji is said to have proclaimed him self as King (two of the few references state "styled him self as the "King of Kurdistan"?) this is far from actually having a Kingdom called Kurdistan. Hittit (talk) 18:50, 4 February 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, Sandstein 08:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite what's implied in the nomination, the Article does not even purport to describe an actual state, but rather, an unrecognized state. The initial premise is thus wrong, and the Article does appear to be sourced. Granted, the References Section is poorly formatted and somewhat confusing. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recognised or not-recognised, it was not a state. It is essential to distinguish between a state and a self-styled ruler who has proclameid him self as a tribal King. Thus the main points are summarised in the articles for Barzanji and the different Kurdish rebellions. Hittit (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hacienda Juanita[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion No evidence of notability. Tagged for over 5 years as of doubtful notability. Seems to be just an advert for an average small hotel. Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable place or building in itself (e.g., not in any historical register), would fail WP:CORP as a business, and apparently it's no longer in business. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor note: pretty sure this qualifies under WP:GEOFEAT as notable since this is considered a historic landmark in Puerto Rico (being an hacienda and a historic landmark of the coffee industry in Puerto Rico). I'm also like 90% sure that the hacienda is considered a historic site by the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture. Let me summon the guys from WP:PUR to see if they know more about this as I'm not an expert on these matters. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found something. There's an entry for Hacienda Juanita at the Puerto Rico National Library. Go to [7] and do a search for Hacienda Juanita. Unfortunately, the library is not digitalized yet so someone from WP:PUR would have to physically go to a public library in Puerto Rico to obtain a copy of the record. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion You can also contact the Puerto Rico National Library yourself by sending them a request for information through the form available at [8]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No prejudice to reversing my !vote if you guys can come up with something, but failing an appearance on a historical register, or some other place-related notability, I am treating this as a company, subject to WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:00, 13 January 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, Courcelles 01:17, 19 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it Does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 09:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - more than sufficient content in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — A simple search in Google Books [9] brings up loads of content in both English & Spanish. This one even states "it's importance as a coffee plantation". — DivaKnockouts (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it asserts the importance of the location (and a single source wouldn't do anyway), but not of this particular building. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 10 reliable sources on the first page of results for "Hacienda Juanita" on Google Books alone. I think that asserts that the building, now a museum is notable. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, I'm not trying to fight you here. The best result of any AFD is a 'keep'. But let's be honest. The first one in your 10 book results is a Spanish textbook, 2, 3 and 4 are tourist guides, the fifth is about horses, the sixth has nothing to do with the subject, and the other four are also tourist guides. Those tourist guides mention the place in the context of it being a hotel, which as far as I understand no longer exists, and there is no evidence that it was notable to begin with. Thus the need to establish some kind of basic WP:GEO-related or historical notability for the place. Just having been there for many years is not enough. I see no such thing, just as I didn't see it when I first offered my delete !vote. So I ask again, where is the evidence that this place is notable beyond just existing and being a hotel listed in out-of-date travel guides? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 sources - FreeRangeFrog, have you looked in Spanish sources? I immediately found 2 sources - admittedly 1 was Lonely Planet in English, which discuss the building itself, when it was built 1833/4, the name of the Spanish lady who built it, the fact that it was "one of the earliest" paradores in 1976. Hotels can be notable. This is. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this? Or this? How do listings in guides among hundreds of other places establish notability? And yes, I can read Spanish perfectly fine, thanks. Do you have any Spanish-language sources I could look at? I searched for "hacienda Juanita Maricao Puerto Rico historia" and a bunch of other combinations [10] and I couldn't find anything in Books or Web. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRangeFrog, mentions in tourist sources which go beyond simple listings and give additional information can and in this case do establish notability. Particularly in the case of a "parador" - which by definition is based in a historical building. In any case I have added further sources which go beyond that first run. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 3 February 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, TerriersFan (talk) 23:01, 3 February 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, Mediran (t • c) 06:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Currant[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Notability, lack of independent reference sources, lack of significant coverage 5minutes (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's been covered by multiple news sources as a direct result of its stories being reported as fact. DS (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems quite significant 1.5 million view a month and sure this article can be improved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh1024 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the reasons put forward by DS and Josh1024, and believe that this website is notable. The article should be improved rather than being deleted. Given the site's history, it can be expected that people will check Wikipedia to see if it is a straight news site or satirical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep. The fact that some internationally reliable news sources have taken some stories about significant individuals and promulgated them as "true" is possibly the most obvious notability (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are, indeed, obvious news sources, then if someone will improve the article by including those references (I'm only seeing 1-2 links - the vast majority of links are self-referential and not actual references to unbiased sources), I will happily withdraw my nomination. 5minutes (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless those missing reliable sources can be provided; otherewise, it's a speedy as non-notable website. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:46, 8 February 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, Mediran (t • c) 06:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more references. If it was just one hoax/controversy, I would say WP:NOTNEWS but there have been a series of incidents mentioned in various media sources. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage, but it's still notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 - addition of a few sources of articles is welcome, but basically, that means we've got an article about a blog that's had a few outside references, an unreferenced statement as to its left-of-center politics, and absolutely no history. 5minutes (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just removed some POV content and the article as written, though far from perfect, meets notability standards. Andrew³²⁷ 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Apple[edit]

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

The organisation has a lack of notability and reliable sources to prove any. The evacipated (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I performed a search and while I could find brief, trivial mentions of this film collective in passing, I found no actual coverage of the group itself. What little mention it has received has been in relation to the people involved in it. None of these articles were actually about the film collective or about the artist's involvement in the group, but their individual achievements. Notability is not inherited by the group being associated with notable persons. None of the awards listed on the page were actually given to the group, but rather to the individual persons involved for projects that were done while they were members of the group but not made as a group project. The editor's comments on the talk page argued for inherited notability, but saying that the individual achievements for the members translates into group notability is akin to saying that because every member of the group were members of the Guelph rec center, that the rec center merits an entry. That's just not how it works.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Tokyogirl79's analysis. Neither the collective itself, nor its works as a collective have been covered. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bostic[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. He has had minor roles in a few films (four, with two of them as an extra [11]). References provided either do not mention him, or mention him trivially. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel has roles in multiple films. His most recent being "Secrets in the Fall" which is distributed by BMG and is currently the best selling Christian film in the nation. He was featured in an American Eagle print campaign and in their billboard on times square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostiholics (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Secrets in the Fall hasn't been released yet so how can it be the "best selling Christian film in the nation"? ... discospinster _talk 04:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And highly recommend WP:SALT to closing admin, since this has been PRODed three times already. No notability whatsoever in November of last year, and none now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just go ahead and delete it please, I completely agree that I don't have the notability for a wikipedia page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debostic (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per short career of minor roles in non-notable productions failing WP:ENT, and lack of any sort of coverage in reliable sources failing WP:GNG. No prejudice for recreation if or when this changes. There is really no reason to SALT, as the inexperienced 9-lifetime-edits-ever User:Bostiholics simply does not understand WP:N and WP:RS....and even with his blanking of the article on February 11, if that user does not learn, we have other ways to deal with behavior of individual contributors. Gonna drop him a personal note sending him to WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonseed[edit]

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

Band does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. I can't find any WP:RSs to support notability other than to prove existence. The mocking of their one notable song doesn't appear to have any support either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 3 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #1 with coverage in multiple third-party sources; I've added several. The article could be further expanded from the new sources, in particular the article in Cross Rhythms. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Magic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, original research article about a video game hack/editor. Unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability, - Mr X 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ROM hacking.(Update: see below.) This is a nice piece of software, but if sources can't be found then it won't be able to have it's own article. The previous redirect to Super Mario World was not helpful, however ( I was looking for information on this a while back, and discovered nothing at all at the SMW page!) At least the Rom hacking page deals with what Lunar Magic is used for, and in addition the page has a screenshot of the program itself. --Yellow1996 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was deleted at the previous AfD discussion. I don't see the notability issues address in this recreated version. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point in redirection, since there is so little coverage on it that it doesn't warrant mentioning in any other article. I was the one who did the last AFD, and ever since, all I can find are unreliable sources and that one fluff piece. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not feeling notability Calqwatch (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets significant coverage in an 1up article. [12] Search for the word "lunar" if you just want to skim through the mentions of it. Found news coverage of a guy using the program to propose to his girlfriend. Anyway, lot of results to look through. Surely more to be found. This seems like a notable program. The custom search results that list everything the video game wikiproject says are reliable sources, is found [13] in case anyone wants to help look for sources. Dream Focus 16:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article originally came from a personal blog called SNES Central, which would seem to be an unreliable source and a source that is not independent of the subject. - Mr X 16:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article as it is now. I added some sources I believe will prove its notable. [14] Dream Focus 16:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that in light of the additional sources, I would concede that the software may be notable. Personally, I would like to see at least two third party sources (not just gaming blogs) that cover the subject in more detail. I'm not sufficiently convinced of notability such that I would withdraw the AfD nomination, especially since two other users have !voted to delete and the article was deleted in a previous AfD. - Mr X 18:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - that the article has been since accepted by 1up and published as part of their own content means that a reliable source has tied their name to the content, which should count towards being noted by a RS. Diego (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: Gaming Hacks published by O'Reylly. Diego (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Nice job on the cleanup! :) I'm convinced. I now change my !vote in favour of keeping it. --Yellow1996 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the notability either. Perhaps the notability of the level editor is being confused with the notability of the game? WikiuserNI (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section shows reliable sources commenting on it, offering it praise. Dream Focus 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming I didn't bother reading them. The articles mention it in passing, or give far from significant coverage. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They specifically mention it and give it praise. A good review from a reliable source counts towards notability, they don't need to write out some long article about it. Dream Focus 23:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has to be significant, where it's mentioned it's mostly in passing and where the article is specifically about it, it's pretty brief. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting praise from reliable sources is significant. The dictionary defines the word "significant" [15] as "having meaning", "having or likely to have influence or effect : important". Its important. Significantly doesn't just mean long, the number of words you can write about something not a valid way to judge it. Dream Focus 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a weak one, but there does seem to be the bare-minimum amount of third party coverage present on it. Barely enough to pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: When did 1UP become a reliable source? p b p 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:VG/RS, there's definitely consensus that its considered reliable. If you literally want to know "when", I'd have to do more digging, but I'm pretty sure I've been using it for years under the understanding that it is reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking a closer look it has been listed at WP:VG/RS since mid December 2007 (over 5 years ago) and I am not aware of any significant challenge against it being reliable during that time. Do you have any reason in particular to think that the site is not reliable and why the existing consensus is wrong?--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple independent RSes are apparent. This meets WP:GNG. I do see that it was definitely in very rough shape when Mr.X nom-ed it, though. -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Metropolitan Community Church. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Ackerman (reverend)[edit]

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

nn clergy, notability tagged for 2 and a half years. many clergy are on the board of this or that, nothing bespeaks importance Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for the same reasons I put on her talk page. Her position in her Church was the same as a Cardinal in the Catholic Church.

Callelinea (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question as the last editor on the talkpage. I'm not sure you can compare this church to one with a billion adherents. That just doesn't fly. And that was 6 years ago. Nobody's cared enough to bother to fix it in that time. NN as nommed.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Ackerman, Insomesia (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up Sources are there, this is an article that needs to be cleaned up so we know what this is really about. Insomesia (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BLOCK EVASION. 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 8 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are two Arlene Ackermans out there. One is an African American educator (Arlene Ackerman (educator)), this one is a Caucasian preacher, and many of the hits I'm finding refer back to the educator rather than the preacher. I'm mostly saying this so people can be careful about what they add so they don't attribute something that is actually for the other Ms Ackerman.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metropolitan Community Church. Here's the thing: most, if not all, of Ackerman's notability stems from her interactions with the MCC. What little I have found mentions her in relation to the church and I haven't really found anything in-depth that would say that she's particularly of note as far as individual notability goes. She's definitely a higher up person in her church life both for the MCC and the other churches, but none of that has really translated to coverage in reliable sources. I found a large amount of false positives for Superintendent Ackerman, with almost every hit I received in Gbooks and news coming up for her rather than for the Reverend Ackerman. Ackerman just isn't notable outside of her interactions with the MCC and would be best served as a redirect to that article. It'd be nice if we could keep her article, but unfortunately she's a part of LBGT history where you have someone that was certainly influential but never actually received any coverage in RS and was seen more as a part of the larger organization she served than as an individual fighter for LBGT rights. I can't keep an article because WP:ILIKEIT. While her position was higher up and comparable to a Cardinal, it isn't really the same thing as a Cardinal, if that makes any sense. The difference is that whether they deserve it or not, Cardinals receive far more coverage than the higher ups of other forms of Christianity. I'd also argue that simply being a Cardinal isn't really enough for an article and would probably be better served as a redirect to their diocese/properties unless they've received in-depth coverage, but then that's just me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An elder supervising a multi-national region of a denomination might be the equivalent of a bishop, but in a denomination with 222 congregations worldwide, I am doubtful of being a member of a board is sufficient for notability. Converting this to a redirect would require the target to say soemthing about her, and I did not see that it did. The article is at present extremely bland as to what she did, apart from occupy an office. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The elder position is certainly not the same as a cardinal, and doesn't really seem to be the equivalent of bishop, either. The church website indicates the position has been in a state of flux, and was originally a part-time position. St Anselm (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything to justify an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Sioul[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO
No gnews or ghits for Fabrice Sioul other than blogs/social networks
References are all self-published sources such as youtube, facebook and linkedin
Page is created by a possible WP:SPA — Baldy Bill (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:15, 27 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Golden and Silver Age of Comic Books[edit]

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

The topic is covered by Golden Age of Comic Books and Silver Age of Comic Books, both of which have references. I'm not sure why this article was created, but a user with 1 edit submitted a giant essay and it stuck. If someone feels some of the content has any merit, then I think it should be merged into History of comics (an article which should have content but doesn't; compare to History of video games). I think the nominated article should be deleted, or at least merged into History of comics, though I am against merging any unreferenced content. Odie5533 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge if the article is well sourced. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Initially I thought that some of the sourced material could be incorporated into the respective Golden Age of Comic Books and Silver Age of Comic Books articles. However, there doesn't appear to be much from reliable sources to merge. I'm not opposed to redirecting this to History of comics if the community desires. Gong show 08:46, 3 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a fork of Comic strip plus the two Age articles above. An undersourced essay, yes, but seemingly accurate despite the lack of references and certainly not "original research" in the Wikipedia sense. But a fork is a fork is a fork. Agreed that there isn't much if any sourced content to merge. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this undersourced essay. Redirect might be okay, but there really isn't much of substance to merge. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Schneider[edit]

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

Delete, appears to fail GNG, while a competent professional certainly, it doesn't appear like there has been actual sources that cover this individual and unfortunately he has a somewhat common name making it harder to show notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is written like a resume. The subject does not seem to be notable and fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 14:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't yet see evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Leonardo_da_Vinci–Fiumicino_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents, the actual article is yet feature in its source code, if the accident receives enough media coverage then someone should remove the redirect and expand the article. Non-admin closure by Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carpatair Flight 1670[edit]

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

Not notable aviation incident. Fails WP:Event and WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William 13:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 13:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions....William 13:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 13:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An aviation accident with injuried people.User:Lucifero4
Keep per above. Was a serious accident in an occidental country.- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, an aircraft was severly damaged, possibly beyond repair. Per WP:AIRCRASH, it is therefore perfectly ok to mention this accident in the respective airline aritcle(s). But I don't think that this particular crash had a sufficient impact which would make a stand-alone article necessary. Flight 1670 is not notable per WP:EVENT. It was just a breaking news spike, with little chance of any lasting significance. The crash has only been covered over a very short period, and there has not been any kind of in-depth coverage and anlysis. --FoxyOrange (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport#Accidents and incidents. Worthy of note here (and/or in the airline article) but not nearly notable enough for a standalone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FoxyOrange. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info into the articles on the Aircraft type, Airline and Airport involved. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI started this AFD and I'm fine with a merge and redirect....William 14:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport#Accidents and incidents, not notable enough for a separate article, worthy of mention there. Cavarrone (talk) 11:02, 8 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An aviation accident with injuried people near an important airport. The aircraft sustained serious damage as well. (Gabinho^>:) 19:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. An aviation accident with 16 injuried people. Subsequent press coverage: During the night the wreckage was repainted to hide the Alitalia logo. [16] NickSt (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per The Bushranger/Cavarrone. Nowhere near enough for a standalone article, and the facts that people were injured and that the crash was reported don't make this article-worthy. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cry of Freedom (Game)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:GNG)
Is about a future publication which does not appear to have any google hits other than self-published (WP:CRYSTAL) Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 15:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If/when it gets made, I can guarantee that my father will want to play it, but as far as this article goes there is nothing to use to show that it passes notability guidelines. There are primary sources announcing the company's intentions to make the game and a little blog and forum chatter, but nothing to show that this would pass notability guidelines at this point in time. If/when RS comes available, I have no problem with it being recreated. It's just that at this point in time there's nothing out there to show it's notable yet.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. What would this article need for it to be notable to be here? Okofo 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Hi Okofo, please click on the WP:GNG ←link and see the criteria applied to all articles, which should always be checked when deciding to create any article, this will help avoid the irritation of seeing your work listed on a deletion discussion. The article itself is not the problem, it's the subject. My suggestion is that you copy the content of your article onto a word processor file on your computer and save it for future reference; once the game receives "significant coverage" in an independent website or magazine (not a blog site or developer's own website) then would be a good time to recreate the article. Tokyogirl79 above explains the problem well. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 8 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Materials Science and Engineering Departments[edit]

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

Clear violation of NOT DIRECTORY, and none or almost none of them will be notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Andrew³²⁷ 20:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many pages which consist of list, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrities. Please suggest some way of modification so that the objective of the current page is fulfilled.Cosmicraga (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 8 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost any technological university will have such a department, so this is not a list of notable things. As an aside, the article is ostensibly about these departments worldwide, but only has listings from India. Chris857 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Mastiff[edit]

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

Removed prod, my prod concern was: Only reference to the breed I could find in google books/scholar was here and it doesn't look reliable. TKK ^{bark !} 09:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 7 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ASD Cape Town[edit]

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

I PRODded this article; the creator raised an objection on my talk page - see this and this so I'm bringing it here instead. This is a football academy that has produced a handful of professional players, but there is no evidence that it is itself notable - it has not received significant, third-party coverage. Giant Snowman 09:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think this article could pass WP:GNG if done right, just a quick few results on google gave me. What I find interesting is [17] it could bring the first Indian player to the Premiership, but that can't be sure. When they are also playing exibition matches against teams like Deportivo I can see it pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:08, 22 January 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, Courcelles 06:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability; playing an exhibition match is not a sign of meeting GNG. C 679 23:31, 6 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Primal Scream. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Light (Primal Scream album)[edit]

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

Album title has been confirmed but not the tracklist and so it does not automatically qualify per WP:ALBUMS & WP:HAMMER. However, the album has some limited coverage in relevant news sources (e.g. NME) containing limited information derived from producer David Holmes's facebook page and an interview with the band's lead singer, Bobby Gillespie, on BBC Radio 6. There's insufficient material at the moment, however, to write an encyclopaedic article. As it almost certainly will be a notable album (and given limited news coverage possibly is now) with sufficient coverage from verifiable sources to write a decent article, I propose placing the article in incubation until ~~after its flagged release date of 6 May 2013.~~ its track listing has been confirmed. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primal Scream. Never mind guidelines and essays, common sense is enough to tell us that there isn't enough yet for a standalone article and that this should be redirected to the band article. Shame they couldn't come up with a more original album title too. --Michig (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primal Scream – agree per User:Michig that this is a better solution.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primal Scream, since we don't yet have enough for an article, but it's likely that we will soon. — sparklism ^hey! 11:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 11:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band page—does not have the substantial quantity of information that is needed as per WP:GNG. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tobis Portuguesa[edit]

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

unsourced for years and little to suggest this actually notable beyond its apparent age. Prod removed without explanation Jac16888 ^Talk 14:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep via WP:GNG. The organization was apparently the subject of a documentary, that documentary and the organization are discussed here, additional sources that appear reliable and provide arguably in-depth coverage include [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG even if only in Portugese. To the nominator, research shows sources to be available, and I offer that notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon them being used. Being "unsourced for years" is not a deletion rationale. Notability in and even if only to Portugal and in Portugese is perfectly fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 7 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously those sources need to be added though. But meets GNG. LenaLeonard (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirected after deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McParland[edit]

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

Not sure if he is notable enough to have a page Telfordbuck (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication he meets notability guidelines. C 679 07:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy. He is in charge of the whole academy of a major footbal club, so I suppose just about a plausible search term. I don't really see much in the article though that couldnt be summarised in one line in the Academy articleFenix down (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adolescence. J04n(talk page) 03:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teen-Age[edit]

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, no evidence this is a real concept. Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or failing that, Redirect. The first link next to sources of the New York Public Library actually supports this though. 'Age' is the noun. This is different from the phrase 'teenage' which is only an adjective used to described adolescents. With "teen" often being short for "teenager", "teen age" can actually mean "era of adolescence". Age used on it's own clearly means era here, especially in modern-english. Arguments for it being an adjective only work for 'teenage' or 'teen-age'. It doesn't work when "age" is a word on its own or the A is capitalized, setting it apart. Ranze (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not as a dab page: it's an article about the word/phrase "Teen Age", distinct from the word "Teenage". As far as I can see only one entry, the first, belongs in a dab page (the redlinked Teen Age (film)). Most of the entries should not be in a dab page because they are Partial Matches. PamD 15:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And even that film doesn't belong in a dab page, as it appears not to be mentioned anywhere in the encylcopedia so couldn't raise a blue link. PamD 15:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if nothing that currently is on the page actually belongs there, what is there to be kept? A dictionary definition? --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have a blue link because we don't yet have an article for it. The film exists though. Redirecting Teen Age (film) to Teenage Jungle would probably be good though once it is made, in the interest of avoiding parenthesis as primary article formats. Ranze (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adolescence, which is where teenager redirects to. This article is almost entirely a list of books, movies, etc. which contain the word "Teen-Age" in their titles, which is not an encyclopedic subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our adolescence article has a note about Teen (disambiguation) at the top of it. I propose that that disambiguation page doesn't serve the purpose that the Teen-Age one does in terms of reflecting titles using this format. I think we risk needlessly cluttering it by importing this information there. The use of a hyphen, of separate words, of a capitalize A, is very antiquated and better associated with older forms of media using this format rather than just directing to the central subject. This is potentially more than a dictionary definition or disambiguation, but it's not quite there yet. Disambiguating and collecting the numerous media examples in the past of this phrasing is useful on its own and can be the seeds to create an article on the topic reflecting something that has fallen out of use but was very common before. Ranze (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is some significance to the use of "Teen-Age" as distinct from "Teenage" in the title of a newspaper article or book or event, then I would need to see some reliable source that explains that distinction and indicates the significance thereof, in order to establish that there really is a distinct topic here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead of my prior recommendation to redirect. There is no encyclopedic topic here by which we can distinguish "Teen-Age" from "Teenage". After the deletion, the title can be redirected to Adolescence if there is any interest in doing so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adolescence as plausible search term. I don't see any more here than a variant spelling of 'teenage', and certainly nothing to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tuition agency[edit]

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

There are no citations or references at all. There is nothing to establish that the subject of this article, a "tuition agency", exists anywhere other than Wikipedia as a term. The article has been tagged since May 2007 for needing citations for verification, yet there are none, nearly 6 years later. FeralOink (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) searched on google, bing, yahoo search, no primary, or secondary sources; speedy deletion? Editor400 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage
I conducted a web search on Google and Bing for tuition agency. The results indicate that "tuition agency" is a term used for entities that act as intermediary between those looking for tutors and tutors wishing to offer their services, with specific usage in Singapore. I don't know why this is necessary. Perhaps it is due to regulations or other factors specific to Singapore. Elsewhere, tutors and those searching for tutors use intermediaries such as newspaper advertisements (online or paper), public schools, community centers and bulletin boards.

There were zero (0) results returned for a Google News search for tuition agency.

In the U.S.A., the term "tuition agency" was used to describe something very different from a tutor clearinghouse or intermediary, unlike Singapore. See Tuition Agency Offers Top Job, The Vindicator (May 31, 1990) and Pressure builds on tuition agency at the state Capitol, Denver Post (January 15, 2000).

The fact that "tuition agency" is used in Singapore does not alter my concern regarding its suitability in current form for EN Wikipedia i.e. no references or citations, no mention of geographic specificity. There is also a history of fraud associated with "tuition agency" in Singapore, which at the very least, requires mention as a "Controversies" section. --FeralOink (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 20:46, 3 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there are reliable sources, the article should stay. Obviously, the article may need a lot of work, but that's no reason to delete. -- YPN YPN ✡ 01:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seppala Siberian Sleddog[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, only mention of the breed in anything approaching secondary and reliable is a passing mention here TKK ^{bark !} 16:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 16:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I contested the proposed deletion because this appears to be one of those little-known "rare" breeds that exist but few have heard of. I thought the article/breed should have a bit of discussion before the article is deleted. PK T(alk) 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 20:47, 3 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - HERE'S A LINK to an article on the breed by Tatiana Siniukina on the dog site konura.info. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above lists the breed in Russian as Сибирская ездовая собака = Siberian Sled Dog. The article indicates it is a working breed, not a show breed, originated in Canada. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for that Russian name returns a whole bunch of results... Wikipedia has an article for Siberian Husky, but that is very clearly a different breed. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER GOOD LINK, this to the International Seppala Siberian Sleddog Club, with copius information on subpages. This, combined with the publications in footnotes, make this a clear keep under the General Notability Guideline, which calls for substantial coverage in multiple, independently published sources. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This site SEPPALA KENNELS calls it a "strain" and intimates that they were the leaders of a movement which tried for 20 years to gain recognition as a breed. The fact that they were not successful does not mean that this is not an encyclopedic topic, however — only that this part of the story ended without success. Whether one calls it a "breed" or a "strain," there are sufficient sources for a stand-alone article... Carrite (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The private kennel site is not a reliable source, and I believe we've established in discussion on WikiProject Dogs that breed clubs are only reliable if they're recognized by an external organization greater than themselves (i.e. a poodle breed club is reliable if it's recognized by the german kennel club or the united kennel club or the akc or w/e but it's unreliable if it's not.) Either way, they don't establish notability because neither of them is independent. None of the sources currently in the article are independent, either - they are all directly associated with the breed club or private kennels; one of them is a link to a wiki (which is not a reliable source by any means). That russian site looks to me like a russian varient of DogBreedInfo, which is not reliable by a long shot, but as I don't speak the language I can't say for sure. --TKK ^{bark !} 03:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources beyond the kennel source, that is just mentioned to be of use if someone wants to flesh out the piece. WikiProject Dogs may have an IDONTLIKEIT attitude towards pieces on types of dogs outside the "officially recognized" breeds, but GNG trumps any Special Notability Guideline for Dogs. The sources are out there, the Russian Konura is a magazine, the existence of a club plus sources showing already in the footnotes is sufficient for a GNG pass, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Chong[edit]

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

It was deleted over at zh due to notability. Lack of references, was an extra in a few series, generally unknown. Dengero (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 20:51, 3 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears there are many Annie Chong's. I looked around a bit and could not find any sources I could directly verify. As such I must rely on the article itself which lists no independent and reliable sources as required by WP:BLP. I would error towards delete unless reliable sources come forward. Mkdw ^talk 08:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, too, failed to find any sources that might prove notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coverage demonstrated by the keep side. As the keep voters stated, multiple reliable sources allow this topic to pass the general notability guideline. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GetRight[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apart from this review from CNET [23], this software has not been covered in third-party reliable sources to warrant notability. The CNET article alone (which is only on an update) is simply not enough. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pretty well-known - several articles in the UK Guardian, for example here. Mcewan (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is "well-known" doesn't mean that it's notable for an encyclopedia. In the link you provide, this is all that talks of it: " My favourite is ReGet, but DAP and GetRight sometimes work when that fails to start, and vice versa. GetRight has a great browser tool." — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was meant as an example, (of the several articles at the Guardian). It's fairly easy to find other mentions confirming that this is/was an important and notable product discussed in reliable sources.

PCPro (discussed in the context of the review of a competitor)
PC Mag
Practical PC
CNet
Norwegian review
Softpedia

Now I know that reviews alone are not enough, but the given the number found on a quick check, its longevity, and the (at the time) unique ability to restart a stalled download, I consider it a clear keep.

Mcewan (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator Did you actually search for any sources to support your nomination? If not, don't you think you should have? If you did why did you fail to find them? Greglocock (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed; I searched for about a half hour. Had to keep reducing my search down. The sources the user posted above don't appear to be from reliable sources (apart from Softpedia and CNET, which I used in the nomination). And apart from that, reviews aren't just gonna cut it. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is a UK national newspaper where it is mentioned 6 times. PC Pro and PC Magazine are or were UK & US (at least) national circulation print magazines. For our purposes they can all be considered reliable.

Here's a wayback link to a shareware industry award.

Here's another review in PC World.

It would be hard to find a magazine in print in say 2004 where this product was not reviewed. Mcewan (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a few mentions in a newspaper and a few reviews does not warrant notability. The awards, however. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is in fact the 3rd AFD for this article - FlashGet AFD for the first. Mcewan (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--JuntungWu (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:NOTAVOTE. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to WP:BEFORE. Editors are requested there to do a number of steps. There are seven interwiki links whose articles are not mentioned in the nomination. The list of WhatLinksHere shows that this nomination proposes to create a large number of redlinks, yet it proposes to do so quietly. Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 3 February 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technologically advanced in 1997, the reputable and independent CNET states in 2002, "GetRight is one of the best-known and easiest-to-use of these...apps". Also, see WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 3 February 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, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:13, 3 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the coverage identified by Mcewen and Unscintillating. I am not impressed by the nominator's critique of the sources. Many are of the highest quality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews of the software, if sufficiently in depth, independent and from reliable publishers, do "cut it" as reliable sources contributing toward notability. The PCPro, PCMag, Practical PC, and CNet sources quoted by Mcewan are independent, reliable publishers. The Practical PC, PCPro and CNet sources are in depth. Multiple reliable sources allow this topic to pass notability guidelines WP:GNG, which suggests that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to meet WP:ORG; WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kynetx[edit]

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

Spammy, unsourced, no evidence of notability. Of the several refs provided, they're self-published, dead or don't appear to mention the article subject anywhere near the notability standard required.

Also this field is broadly my day job, yet I still can't understand from this article what on earth they're selling. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs some rewriting, but the company seems notable. I was able to find 10 newspaper articles on NewsBank, some of which provide in depth coverage. I also found 30 newspaper articles and articles in three different magazines on HighBeam. Seems to meet WP:ORG. - Mr X 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 3 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Bad article is bad, but the subject appears to be notable. Andrew³²⁷ 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of loan words in Hindi[edit]

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

A request has been made by another editor in January for clarification as to how this list meets the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone list. This has not been forthcoming, so I am suggesting deletion as not meeting WP:SALAT. The content may be appropriate for adding to Wiktionary. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. I found the following sources on this topic:

Conflicting phonological patterns: A study in the adaptation of English loan words in Hindi
Some Linguistic Influences of English on Hindi
Bhatia, Kailash Chandra. "A linguistic study of English loan words in Hindi." Allahabad: Hindustani Academy (1967).

However, since all of these refer only to English loan words, I don't think there is any basis for keeping this list as a whole, although this seems like useful information to have on Wiktionary. It is possible that Hindi-language sources cover the topic in more detail. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "WP is not a dictionary" and a "list of words" is what a dictionary is. An article on English language influence on Hindi could be written, but only citing the most important examples -- not a list of all of them (or even many of them.) BigJim707 (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, most of the entries seem to be incomplete. JIP | Talk 08:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anglo-Saxon. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon peoples[edit]

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

This article is redundant with our article Anglo-Saxons. The creator has said that this article is about a different sense of the term "Anglo-Saxon" than the one in that article (see the talk page), but I don't think the demarcation is clear enough for us to have separate articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anglo-Saxons leaving a redirect to Anglo-Saxons#Contemporary_meanings. I am not clear whether or not this topic passes WP:GNG (I guess it does) but anyway a merge would be beneficial encyclopedically. Thincat (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge The article is not about the ancient Anglo-Saxons that the Anglo-Saxons article is about, but is instead about a common term of reference contemporary peoples who speak the English language or are of ethno-linguistic relation to British peoples, this use of the term has continued long since the ancient Anglo-Saxons dissappeared. Suggest clarification by renaming to Anglo-Saxons peoples (linguistic and ethnic conception). The contemporary meanings section should be merged into that article.--R-41 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be another way of doing things which I would have no problem with. Thincat (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an overlap here with Anglosphere and indeed English language. There is also the notable term English speaking peoples as used eg by Winston Churchill. I do not think a simple redirect or merge will work because as pointed out this article actually has little to do with Anglo-Saxons or their language, whilst a redirect to Anglosphere would confuse without a lot of explanation that is otiose to that article. As a concept, Anglo-Saxon peoples may be intersting, and notable, enough to bear examination in its own right precisely because it has little to do with them as such. It is probably best understood as a foundation myth and the development of an English national identity. I would prefer to remove from this article the overlap with Anglosphere, simply noting that the term can be used to describe English speaking peoples and directing them to that article, but they are not strictly synonymous. --AJHingston (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates Anglo-Saxons#Contemporary meanings. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and where words can have different meanings the correct approach is to mention it in the main article. The article says that "Anglo-Saxon peoples...refer to those peoples who are, or are related to native speakers of the English language." We already have articles about English people and English-speaking people, so any expansion of the article would be forking. TFD (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Thincat and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect If there is anything to merge. Not convinced of notability. Mcewan (talk) 18:35, 5 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anglo-Saxons#Contemporary meanings. I agree with Thincat that Anglo-Saxons#Contemporary meanings already covers the topic of the multiple meanings of the term Anglo-Saxon and the Anglo-Saxons article itself is about the peoples. On the linguistic side there is greater depth at Anglosphere and English language, including the historical development of the language. On the ethnic end, Ethnic groups in Europe has much more information and context on the British peoples and links to more specialized articles. With multiple meanings, and the linguistic and ethnic aspects well covered in other articles, this article seems redundant. --Mark viking (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. –BuickCentury Driver 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fork. Incorporate the photos if they are needed. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Anglo-Saxon. Regardless of the contents of the articles, the Anglo-Saxons were (and in other senses are) people. We don't need two articles with different titles on the same topic, any more than we need "New York Yankees" and "The New York Yankees baseball team." BigJim707 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anglo-Saxon. Nothing worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Strange assertions (Celts are the same as Anglo-Saxons? Norman French are Anglo Saxon? I'd like to see RS sources mmaking such assertions.) Collect (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anglo-Saxon its a duplication. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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